Prostitution

drkpower

28064212 wrote: »

The point of an internet discussion board is to have a discussion on the merits of your position alone. nozzferrahhtoo could be a lawyer. Hell, I could be a prostitute. Neither of us claims to be, because any such claim is meaningless, so we argue our positions instead

+1
And more importantly, whether someone has a legal background is, for the purposes of this debate, essentially irrelevent.

Eliot Rosewater

I agree. Could we please discuss the issue at hand rather than deciding who is and who is not a lawyer? Our positions should stand on their own merits, not any claim that we are this or that. Thanks.

/mod.

ShooterSF

You know your argument is failing when you resort to "arguing from authority". So far one lawyer oozing credentials and another charity worker with hands on experience (oh matron) with prostitutes.

I've yet to read a good reason to continue to force the prostitution industry underground.

(Edit- just seen the mod warning, understood)

nozzferrahhtoo

ShooterSF wrote: »

charity worker with hands on experience (oh matron) with prostitutes.

I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread but it is worth reiterating anyway.

Argument from authority is, as pointed out, bad enough. However it is worth noting that certain "authorities" actually are even worse than even that as they skew results rather than add useful data.

Charity workers working with prostitutes will, by definition, come in contact with prostitutes in trouble, suffering, or undergoing some bad experience. It is tempting for the charity worker in question to extrapolate from these experiences a generalised impression of the group as a whole.

This is not only therefore inaccurate, but highly damaging.

To use an analogy imagine I work with people with back pain… In the line of my work I could notice I am called often into environments where heavy lifting is performed to treat people with back problems. I would then claim “All the people in heavy lifting environments I come in contact with have back pains, so clearly heavy lifting environments are a bad thing”.

However my job by definition only brings me into contact with the sufferers and not with the people who are perfectly happy and healthy in their roles. My claim based on my anecdote is not only therefore a false extrapolation but a very damaging one, indicting as it does an industry that is in the majority innocent of my accusations.

I have great respect for those who choose to work on the ground with prostitutes in need of assistance. I would say nothing against them on that note and kudos to those on the threads doing it.

However people such as that should realise that their arguments from authority based upon their own anecdotes and experiences in the role are worse than inadmissible… that are likely statistically skewed and damaging.

FoxT

Prostitution is in itself undesirable.

Nevertheless, there will always be a demand for it, and therefore it will always be available.

Given that it will always exist, society has the options of permission, prohibition, or regulation.

Prohibition does not work. It has been tried with drugs, alcohol, prostitution, and is demonstrably ineffective.

Permission may make life easier in some ways for individual prostitutes but does not address any of the harmful effects or public health issues that are associated with prostitution.

In terms of availability, prohibition = permission, no real difference.

This leaves us with regulation, which IMO is the least undesirable option.

28064212

FoxT wrote: »

Prostitution is in itself undesirable.

That's far from a given. I think Reality TV is in itself undesirable, don't think I'll be able to get it banned though

FoxT wrote: »

Nevertheless, there will always be a demand for it, and therefore it will always be available.

Given that it will always exist, society has the options of permission, prohibition, or regulation.

Prohibition does not work. It has been tried with drugs, alcohol, prostitution, and is demonstrably ineffective.

Permission may make life easier in some ways for individual prostitutes but does not address any of the harmful effects or public health issues that are associated with prostitution.

In terms of availability, prohibition = permission, no real difference.

This leaves us with regulation, which IMO is the least undesirable option.

The problem with that argument is that it can be applied to anything which is prohibited.

However, prostitution is an act between two consenting adults, so there is no reason for it to be prohibited (or at least, none which have been put forward so far)

ShooterSF

FoxT wrote: »

Prostitution is in itself undesirable.

I would hope if it is regulated and brought into the open no one would be forced to be A) a prostitute or a customer. Therefore those that find it desirable can get it or work in it and those that don't continue not to.

FoxT

It is my personal view that Prostitution is undesirable.

Nevertheless, there will always be a demand for it, and therefore it will always be available.

Given that it will always exist, society has the options of permission, prohibition, or regulation.

Prohibition of Adult prostitution does not work, as it seems that in Ireland today it is fairly easy to access their services. Of course prohibition may well be the best answer for other issues.

Permission may make life easier in some ways for individual prostitutes but does not address any of the harmful effects or public health issues that are associated with prostitution.

In terms of availability, prohibition = permission, no real difference.

This leaves us with regulation, which IMO is the least undesirable option.

T runner

Denerick wrote: »

Prostitution is the oldest trade and will always be so.

Have we any proof that this is the case?

Wherever there are men looking for sex, some women will provide it at a price.

Not necessarily.

The average middle to upper end prostitute in this country earns between 200 and 250 euro per hour.

But wjat is the modal take home pay of your average Prostitute?

This compares nicely with the new national minimum wage, which is 7.65 per hour. Assuming that most prostitutes are unskilled and with a low educational attainment, the fact that women who have no other assets other than their looks can earn the equivilent of a lawyer is a strong incentive. It makes me wonder why the hell any good looking woman would bother sweeping floors for an absolute pittance.

Well you do have the health grawbacks. Having dozens of guys stick their penii in you every day whether you are fully ready or not is actually extremely bad for your health. The VHI reports into heatlh problems of prostitutes here is quite eye opening. Women are in prostitution in this country by in large because they have no choice.

You also have the issue of beatings especially in Ireland. Trends here indicate a very traditional viewing of Irisg females by Irish males here. There are many
perverse manifestations of this viewing one being a tendency to control. the shocking rate of domestic violence and death here are evidence of this control. Also the Irish client (usually middle class) can take this perversion out by beating the prostitute when she is not doing as he wishes (control her). Not a glamourous profession as your painting seems to depict. Not even close.

That said, its impossible to overlook the moral implications. It is clearly denigration of women, and no father would ever want his daughter to grow up to be a prostitute.

I would be more concerned about the girl herself than her father, but hey this is Ireland, these are things that concern us guys!!!

There is a reason for this as the very trade makes all people of conscience slightly nauesous and collectively guilty.

Only makes many Irish males feel like this after he has taken advantage and possibly beaten her.

In conclusion, I think legalisation of prostitution is the only equitable solution. Prostitution is widespread in this country, most people simply aren't aware of it. Prostitutes at the moment have limited options - they either seek protection in the form of a 'pimp', usually a violent person who takes the majority of the prostitutes wages. Or they can go alone, and risk rape, assault, murder - anything really as there are a lot of sick men out there.

Any man who uses a prostitute is a sick man. What would your sister had an issue and turned to prostitution. What would you think of any man who hired her? Would you think he was an upstanding citizen? Or perhaps a scum bag who used vulnerable women. If you wouldnt tolerate this with someone you know then where are your principles when it concerns someone you dont?

I'd rather allow them the benefit of our labour laws and employee protection. If we accept that prostitution is widespread and that it has always been a constant in human history, we should also seek the most humane and reasonable solution - legalise it, protect the workers, and prevent the abuses rampant in the black market.
Thoughts?

This myth about prostitution being a constant in Human history has been used to ease many a mans concious.

It is a case of supply and demand. Demand is always the driver. If you have the demand you will always have enough vulnerable women.

If you criminalise the act of hiring a prostitute, attack the demand then the effects are quite different. The lilly livered Irish middle class male may suddenly not "need" prostitutes as much as he claimed. A quick **** will actually do for him.
At the same time educational programs councilling and other helps can be given to women trying to be re-introduced into society.

Attack the sex traffickers, managers and the ordinary Irish salt of the earth gob****e who causes the demand in the first place. Re-habilitate the women back into society.

nozzferrahhtoo

FoxT wrote: »

It is my personal view that Prostitution is undesirable.

And there is nothing wrong with that. Coffee in my opinion is undesirable. I hate the stuff. Therefore I simply do not buy it. Simple as that.

The problem however is that with some things people feel that if it is undesirable to them then it should be to everyone else too and they move to call it “bad”, “immoral” or worse “illegal”.

The people who call for prostitution to be viewed as immoral and illegal merely because they themselves do not want to avail of the service are as ridiculous as I would be if I went around trying to have coffee banned merely because I hate the taste of it.

FoxT wrote: »

Permission may make life easier in some ways for individual prostitutes but does not address any of the harmful effects or public health issues that are associated with prostitution.

Actually for many of the issues, it would. Many of the “issues” of prostitution are artificial in that they are only caused by it being pushed underground as immoral or illegal. Normalising the industry would in fact deal with many of the issues that are only existing because the work itself is performed in secret, underground, with no recourse to the medical, social, legal and other benefits that we as “normal” employees enjoy.

nozzferrahhtoo

T runner wrote: »

Having dozens of guys stick their penii in you every day whether you are fully ready or not is actually extremely bad for your health.

I am curious where you are getting your statistics on how many customers the average prostitute has on a daily basis. I worked a summer in Spar for one summer while in college and at the rates the average prostitute charges per hour, a single hours work with 2 customers in one week would make her a better earner than I was on 5 days of 8 hour shifts.

T runner wrote: »

Women are in prostitution in this country by in large because they have no choice.

The vast majority of us in any country are workers because we have no choice. What "choice" is it you feel they do not have that we do? What reports and studies are you basing your statistical claims on?

T runner wrote: »

You also have the issue of beatings especially in Ireland.

We do. Read my post above. I mention issues that are artificial, in that the prostitutes are at a greater risk, if not solely, because of the underground taboo nature of the profession. They do not have the medical and legal recourses that we do against violence in our own jobs. Violence in prostitution is actually an argument for fully normalizing and regulating the industry, yet some people use it as an argument against prostitution which is nothing short of ridiculous. Their own arguments create the arguments they then use.

T runner wrote: »

Not a glamourous profession as your painting seems to depict. Not even close.

MOST professions are not glamorous so I am struggling to find the relevance of this.

T runner wrote: »

Any man who uses a prostitute is a sick man.

Thankfully this is only your opinion and little more. There is no medical, psychological or moral back up for it that I am aware of and I am somewhat glad that in reality things do not become true simply because you say they are.

T runner

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am curious where you are getting your statistics on how many customers the average prostitute has on a daily basis. I worked a summer in Spar for one summer while in college and at the rates the average prostitute charges per hour, a single hours work with 2 customers in one week would make her a better earner than I was on 5 days of 8 hour shifts.

But I didnt supply any statistics as to how many clients a prostitute has per day. I merely impressed that the type of sexual activity a prostitute ingaged in including having sex with multiple partners per day is very bad for her health. I can supply you with VHI reports. Can you supply me with your sources stating the average income of prostitutes in Ireland. I am very sceptical. You see, you are calculating the average earnings based on them taking home all of the money. In the vast majority of cases this isnt exactly the case. There is a whole criminal industry of men making money out of others misery.

The vast majority of us in any country are workers because we have no choice. What "choice" is it you feel they do not have that we do? What reports and studies are you basing your statistical claims on?

My opinions are base on Swedish research and police records, Gardai records, VHI reports that i studied in the last Prostitution thread on this site (maybe it was this one Ill check)

As for choice many women in the prostitution industry are vulnerable. They may have addiction problems, mental health issues, have had abusive upbringings, be under financial control by their handler, be under some form of duress, be trafficked. That sound like your choices.

We do. Read my post above. I mention issues that are artificial, in that the prostitutes are at a greater risk, if not solely, because of the underground taboo nature of the profession.

They are at greater risk because some of their clients are males who have issues over the role of women in society and feel that by paying for a prostitute they are buying the right to control her. Many of the people who beat prostitutes are not typical criminals, but are middle class guy next door types whothinks that by handing over the money he has bought the right to control her however he sees fit.

They do not have the medical and legal recourses that we do against violence in our own jobs. Violence in prostitution is actually an argument for fully normalizing and regulating the industry, yet some people use it as an argument against prostitution which is nothing short of ridiculous. Their own arguments create the arguments they then use.

There is nothing to stop the state giving medical and legal resources to prostitutes. There is also nothing to stop them attacking the demand for prostitution which drives the industry. If your average Irish punter (middle class male) was threatened with a criminal offence he would soon have a **** or cheat, or work out his psychological problems that makes him feel he has to beat up abuse and/or beat up women.

MOST professions are not glamorous so I am struggling to find the relevance of this.

You wondered why most women did not work as prostitutes given the lucrative nature of the business.

Thankfully this is only your opinion and little more. There is no medical, psychological or moral back up for it that I am aware of and I am somewhat glad that in reality things do not become true simply because you say they are.

The fact is a huge amount of prostitutes are actually vulnerable people.

A man who is hiring a prostitute doesnt know if they have addiction problems, mental health issues, have had abusive upbringings, be under financial control by their handler, be under some form of duress, be trafficked.

That means he knows that the woman he is about to have sex with may not be there out of a completely free choice. Yet knowing this he continues out of his own free will. He might be having sex with a girl who his only there becuase she has suffered sexual abuse as a child. he doesnt care, he is sick.

Again to help you understand. If you had a sister who ended up a drug addict and got into prostitution to feed her habit. What would you feel about the men who had sex with this vulnerable person? Would the excuse that he assumed she was there out of her own free will wash with you?

It wouldnt with me. This could be any man who uses a prostitute in Ireland.

nozzferrahhtoo

T runner wrote: »

But I didnt supply any statistics as to how many clients a prostitute has per day. I merely impressed that the type of sexual activity a prostitute ingaged in including having sex with multiple partners per day is very bad for her health.

Exactly my point. You do not have stats on this. In fact there is no reason I am aware of to assume that a prostitute has more sex in a week than any normal woman in a relationship.

That she has sex with more PEOPLE than a woman in a committed relationship is clear. That she has sex more TIMES than a woman in a committed relationship however is entirely pulled out of nowhere that I can discern except that you would like it to be so to support your case.

You appear to be operating on some fantasy that they have "dozens" of guys "every day". Your exact words, not mine. Dozens of guys every day you said. In fact 2 a week would be enough to let them earn more than I did per week working in Spar and many women with their boyfriends will be having sex a lot more than 2 times a week. Your fear of "dozens" is likely the amount of client a prostitute will get in a year, let alone a day. There is not even enough hours in the day to have "dozens" of clients let alone in a week.

So your medical concerns appear to be baseless unless you have good statistics that women in this work are having more sex than the average couple with a healthy sex life.

T runner wrote: »

My opinions are base on Swedish research and police records, Gardai records

Links please as I am all too used to people claiming to have read reports that do not actually exist but just HAPPEN to support everything they are claiming. With over 2200 posts on this forum, I am pretty sure you are used to it too.

T runner wrote: »

They may have addiction problems, mental health issues, have had abusive upbringings, be under financial control by their handler, be under some form of duress, be trafficked.

Links please. “May” is hardly relevant to anything. They “may” have two heads and three legs. “May” adds nothing to this conversation. They all “may” be incredibly joyful and healthy people with no problems who merely enjoy their work or they all “may” be doing the work for no other reason than aliens in space craft have taken control of their brain and are making them do it.

So can we please stick to what you can show “is” with actual studies and research and back up, instead of what you think “may” be?

T runner wrote: »

They are at greater risk because some of their clients are males who have issues over the role of women in society and feel that by paying for a prostitute they are buying the right to control her.

Again this is an argument FOR normalisation and regulation of the industry. There are many jobs that put women at risk from violent and abusive men. They are safe however because the industry they are in is above board and protects them and when bad things happen they feel no taboos making them reluctant to go to the police to report it. The only reason prostitutes are at greater risk is because it is an underground industry with no recourse to the protections that you and I take for granted.

T runner wrote: »

You wondered why most women did not work as prostitutes given the lucrative nature of the business.

No I did not. You would do well to keep track and keep up with who you are talking to at any given time, rather than say one person said something that in fact someone else on the same thread did. I am perfectly aware of why the number of women attracted to the industry would be relatively small and I expressed no inquiry on the matter as you suggest.

I merely think any comment about the work not being "glamorous" is irrelevant given the vast majority of the jobs people are in also are not. So what relevance you think the glamor, or lack thereof, of the job has got to do with the conversation on the thread I am entirely in the dark on.

T runner wrote: »

The fact is a huge amount of prostitutes are actually vulnerable people.

Then we should be protecting them in their work better, rather than causing it to be a taboo and pushing it underground where they have no protection, no legal and medical recourse to support them and no understanding from the rest of society… leaving them at the mercy of those that would take advantage of them.

As I keep saying on this thread, the people that would argue against prostitution are actually creating the environment that the bad things happen in… yet instead of admitting that they joyfully jump on those bad things and use them as arguments against prostitution. They are artificially creating arguments, many of which would go away if they actually started arguing the other way.

T runner wrote: »

A man who is hiring a prostitute doesnt know if they have addiction problems, mental health issues, have had abusive upbringings, be under financial control by their handler, be under some form of duress, be trafficked.

Again regulation of the industry could GIVE them that knowledge. If I buy cigarettes off a trader on Henry Street I do now know if my money is going to drug or terrorist gangs, or actually going into the pocket of the guy I am buying them off. If I walk into a news agent and buy an above board pack, legally, with tax paid to the state and an official EU sticker on the seal I do know where the product came from and mostly where the money is going.

Consumer knowledge of a product or service comes with greater regulation, not with pushing it further under ground. Most of the arguments are making here support my point, not your own.

But I do fail to see your point. If I higher a normal masseuse, lawyer, house cleaner etc I also can not “know” if they have addiction problems or mental health issues.

Virgil°

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Links please as I am all too used to people claiming to have read reports that do not actually exist but just HAPPEN to support everything they are claiming. With over 2200 posts on this forum, I am pretty sure you are used to it too.

Prepare yourself for some Ruhama based research!
Honestly mate i wouldn't even bother with this thread anymore, its a lost cause if you want some rational debate. Just find the last thread on prostitution where TRunner posted against all the evidence and logic and decide for yourself whether you want to go down that road. Just a heads up.

nozzferrahhtoo

You are probably right, but there is also something said for keeping the other side talking when they make it clear the evidence for their own side is made up, invented or weak.

Sometimes it is best to avoid trolls and fundamentalists who will lie or make up evidence to serve their case. But there are some people that sometimes all you have to do is keep them talking and they do more for your case than you could for yourself.

Ta for the heads up all the same.

Eliot Rosewater

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sometimes it is best to avoid trolls and fundamentalists who will lie or make up evidence to serve their case.

You may not be directly referring to people on this thread, but this still sounds like a personal attack. Please keep it civil and attack the content of the post rather than the poster.

/mod

T runner

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Exactly my point. You do not have stats on this. In fact there is no reason I am aware of to assume that a prostitute has more sex in a week than any normal woman in a relationship.

Just as there is no reason to assume that a chef does not cook as many meals as a standard housewife.

That she has sex with more PEOPLE than a woman in a committed relationship is clear. That she has sex more TIMES than a woman in a committed relationship however is entirely pulled out of nowhere that I can discern except that you would like it to be so to support your case.

Its common sense really but heres a link to some durex survey

People on average have sex 127 times per year. Thats only once every 3 days. Are you suggesting that a prostitute who has sex only
once every 3 days. Please feel free to continue this ridiculous line of reasoning!!!!

Your exact words, not mine. Dozens of guys every day you said. In fact 2 a week would be enough to let them earn more than I did per week working in Spar and many women with their boyfriends will be having sex a lot more than 2 times a week. Your fear of "dozens" is likely the amount of client a prostitute will get in a year, let alone a day. There is not even enough hours in the day to have "dozens" of clients let alone in a week.

But youre again assuming the fact that the fee for a prostitute is on average 200 euro per hour. Can you substantiate that?

Also you are claiming that a prostitute keeps 100% of her earnings. What about her handlers?

So your medical concerns appear to be baseless unless you have good statistics that women in this work are having more sex than the average couple with a healthy sex life.

Lets see, the average couple has sex one every 3 days.

From this report


51% of escort girls in Ireland are on call 24/7

Heres one who worked more "normal hours".

"You worked from 7pm to 5am, mostly after
2am. It was quicker, more normal sex and the men were younger
but you could see up to 10 men a night (Anara)"

Any comment????

Baldwin (1992) documented that, in
Canada, women in prostitution had a mortality rate 40-times higher than the
national average.

The HSE offer a drop in clinic for prostitutes. Hers the results of a 2007 survey:

All women attending the WHP (HSE) are offered and advised to have regular
screening for sexually transmitted infections and reproductive tract infections.
Data on the sexual and reproductive health of 73 women attending the clinic in
2007 was compiled. For 59 of the 73 women, there were recorded symptoms
relating to sexually transmitted infections, reproductive tract infections or other
health complications related to being in prostitution.61 Women presented with a
range of health symptoms that cause great discomfort and some that have
serious health consequences:
• 37 per cent had bacterial vaginosis (BV). Symptoms include abnormal
vaginal discharge with odour and genital itch
61 This does not indicate that there were no health consequences for the remaining 14. Some were awaiting
results, some came to the clinic for condoms and other forms of contraception, and some for health conditions
related to drug use.
3
C H A P T E R
107
• 31 per cent had candida infections (thrush). Candida is not considered
an STI but can be passed on through sexual contact. Symptoms include
thick vaginal discharge discomfort during sex and infections, which
range from superficial infections such as oral, vaginal and anal thrush
to systemic infections
• 22 per cent had hepatitis A. This is an infectious disease that affects
the liver and blood. Symptoms include flu-like symptoms, jaundice,
nausea and tiredness
• 20 per cent had hepatitis B. This is a viral infection that affects the liver
and blood. Symptoms include flu-like symptoms, nausea and vomiting,
tiredness and jaundice. Long-term complications can include liver
cirrhosis and cancer
• 14 per cent had Chlamydia. Worldwide, this is the most common
bacterial sexually transmitted infection. If left untreated, it can lead to
pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and infertility. It is also known as the
silent infection as 80 per cent of women and 50 per cent men have no
symptoms, making early detection difficult
• 10 per cent had urinary tract infections
• 6 per cent had cervical cell abnormality (CIN 1-3)
• 14 per cent had vaginal/genital warts
Other conditions included anal warts, cystitis, syphilis,

Links please as I am all too used to people claiming to have read reports that do not actually exist but just HAPPEN to support everything they are claiming. With over 2200 posts on this forum, I am pretty sure you are used to it too.[/QUOTE]


And Prostitutes "may" keep all of the 200 euro per hour. Links please.

So can we please stick to what you can show “is” with actual studies and research and back up, instead of what you think “may” be?

You too. Your turn. Links!

Again this is an argument FOR normalisation and regulation of the industry.
There are many jobs that put women at risk from violent and abusive men.

There are no jobs whise function is to take degradation from sick men. It is contrary to the UN declaration of rights.

They are safe however because the industry they are in is above board and protects them and when bad things happen they feel no taboos making them reluctant to go to the police to report it.

Why from someone who demands links and examples you are quite shy with them yourself. Examples and Links please.

The only reason prostitutes are at greater risk is because it is an underground industry with no recourse to the protections that you and I take for granted.

They are at greater risk becuase of the nature of the job and the type of client that wishes to use prostitutes. They are also at risk becuase they are generally vulnerable women.

Then we should be protecting them in their work better, rather than causing it to be a taboo and pushing it underground where they have no protection, no legal and medical recourse to support them and no understanding from the rest of society… leaving them at the mercy of those that would take advantage of them.

They can only be protected by keeping them out of a degrading abusive activity like prostitution. You are not protecting vulnerable women by allowing them to enter prostitution. You protect them by criminalising the scumbag clients who doesnt care taht he may be having sex with a woman who would not be there only out of desperation, mental illness, addiction, or childhood abuse. Having sex with such a person is abuse. You do not protect taht person in any way by allowing to be abused. Abuse and degradation should not be legalised.

Demand is driving the industry NOT supply. Attack the abusive punter. It has worked in Sweden, and re-habilitate all women who need to back into society.

As I keep saying on this thread, the people that would argue against prostitution are actually creating the environment that the bad things happen in…

Attacking the demand will have different results to attacking the supply.
If jailtime is on the cars for the Irish middle class male punter then supply will dry up.

Again regulation of the industry could GIVE them that knowledge. If I buy cigarettes off a trader on Henry Street I do now know if my money is going to drug or terrorist gangs, or actually going into the pocket of the guy I am buying them off. If I walk into a news agent and buy an above board pack, legally, with tax paid to the state and an official EU sticker on the seal I do know where the product came from and mostly where the money is going

.

Its not the same thing is it? If the street guy was a heroin addict and you gave him money up an alley pulled down his trousers and buggered him is that the same thing? Where the money went goes is not quite the same issue? You would be having sex with someone who is not in possession of their faculties is vulnerable and you would be quilty of abuse. Saying you didnt realise they were vulnerable is not an excuse? Or do you disagree?

Consumer knowledge of a product or service comes with greater regulation, not with pushing it further under ground. Most of the arguments are making here support my point, not your own.

"A product" you mean the prostitute? What a grotesque inhiman degrading description! If you have sex with someone it is up to you to make sure that they are not agreeing to sex becuase they are in an extremely vulnerable situation. If you cannot decipher this then you cannot have sex because you may be having sex with someone who is vulnerable which amounts to abuse.

But I do fail to see your point. If I higher a normal masseuse, lawyer, house cleaner etc I also can not “know” if they have addiction problems or mental health issues.

The consequence of you hiring a house cleaner that has addiction problems may be that she steals from you. The consequences of you having sex with someone who is vulnerable, an adddict, someone who has been abused etc is that you are guilty of abuse. Do you understand the difference now?

miec

I am wearing my bias on my sleeve, I do find prosititution immoral because it divorces spirituality from sexuality. I do not see prostitition as a career / job / vocation (it's not something career guidance counsellor's advise) and the reason I see this is because I do not believe in selling sex, whether that is through prosititution, advertising and so forth. I do not believe that human sexuality should be commidified or made into a product, for me it is wrong and immoral. I see sex as a shared act that involves feelings, love and romance, not here is x amount of money, let me stick my dick in your mouth, anus or vagina (depending on the gender of the person). What does that do to the human psyche? Why is that everyone talks about it being a job/ career path or the great money in it? Money is not everything otherwise an awful lot more women and men would be selling their bodies.

"A product" you mean the prostitute? What a grotesque inhiman degrading description!

I am glad someone else sees this viewpoint.

drkpower

miec wrote: »

I am wearing my bias on my sleeve, I do find prosititution immoral because it divorces spirituality from sexuality. .

So do one night stands; criminalise them?

miec wrote: »

I do not believe in selling sex.

Me neither; therefore I dont buy or sell it. But if two other people 'believe' in it, that should be up to them, not us.

Kiki10

Denerick wrote: »

At the moment, prostitution is ridiculously accessible. I would equate it to the legal highs industry - for all intents and purposes, recreational designer drugs were legal for all. Prostitution in Ireland now masquerades as an 'escort service'. They have penetrated every county in the land.

Prostitution is the oldest trade and will always be so. Wherever there are men looking for sex, some women will provide it at a price. The average middle to upper end prostitute in this country earns between 200 and 250 euro per hour. This compares nicely with the new national minimum wage, which is 7.65 per hour. Assuming that most prostitutes are unskilled and with a low educational attainment, the fact that women who have no other assets other than their looks can earn the equivilent of a lawyer is a strong incentive. It makes me wonder why the hell any good looking woman would bother sweeping floors for an absolute pittance.

That said, its impossible to overlook the moral implications. It is clearly denigration of women, and no father would ever want his daughter to grow up to be a prostitute. (Most fathers would be happy to see their daughter grow up to be a nurse, earning a fraction of what a middle end prostitute would earn) There is a reason for this as the very trade makes all people of conscience slightly nauesous and collectively guilty. Surely there is a better way.

On the other hand, most men (myself included) view porn which is prostitution by any other name. We're just not actively partaking in the sexual act. I'm not sure I really see such a vast moral distinction. If hardcore pornography is legal, why not prostitution?

In conclusion, I think legalisation of prostitution is the only equitable solution. Prostitution is widespread in this country, most people simply aren't aware of it. Prostitutes at the moment have limited options - they either seek protection in the form of a 'pimp', usually a violent person who takes the majority of the prostitutes wages. Or they can go alone, and risk rape, assault, murder - anything really as there are a lot of sick men out there. I'd rather allow them the benefit of our labour laws and employee protection. If we accept that prostitution is widespread and that it has always been a constant in human history, we should also seek the most humane and reasonable solution - legalise it, protect the workers, and prevent the abuses rampant in the black market.

Thoughts?

6000 people have HIV or AIDS at the moment in Ireland (The states guess). If you contract this disease you will naturally live 10 years. With medication you may live 20 years like a wasted skeleton. I would ask any fella here to please think of how you would tell your parents, wife or girlfriend or indeed children, that you have HIV and maybe they need to get tested. These unfortunate women usually come to violent ends. I understand people think theres loads of money in it, but name any retired hookers living the good life locally?

28064212

Kiki10 wrote: »

6000 people have HIV or AIDS at the moment in Ireland (The states guess). If you contract this disease you will naturally live 10 years. With medication you may live 20 years like a wasted skeleton. I would ask any fella here to please think of how you would tell your parents, wife or girlfriend or indeed children, that you have HIV and maybe they need to get tested.

Do you honestly think the overall amount of sex in the country will massively increase if prostitution is made legal? Or the overall amount of unprotected sex?

Kiki10 wrote: »

These unfortunate women usually come to violent ends.

What are you basing that on? And someone who kills a prostitute is guilty of murder, the same as any other murder. What relevance does it have?

Kiki10 wrote: »

I understand people think theres loads of money in it, but name any retired hookers living the good life locally?

Yes, because retired hookers obviously go around telling people how they had a successful career as a prostitute when their are people ready to condemn them from all corners. Not to mention the fact that prostitution is rarely a career, it's something done for a few years to make some money

Kiki10

28064212 wrote: »

Do you honestly think the overall amount of sex in the country will massively increase if prostitution is made legal? Or the overall amount of unprotected sex?


What are you basing that on? And someone who kills a prostitute is guilty of murder, the same as any other murder. What relevance does it have?


Yes, because retired hookers obviously go around telling people how they had a successful career as a prostitute when their are people ready to condemn them from all corners. Not to mention the fact that prostitution is rarely a career, it's something done for a few years to make some money

All the broke countrys of the world who allow this have huge medical issues. Africa & eastern europe cant cope with HIV.

You can check out the WHO stats if you need proof of what im saying. If you think women who can exit this job ejoyed it, I suggest you get help man.

28064212

Kiki10 wrote: »

All the broke countrys of the world who allow this have huge medical issues. Africa & eastern europe cant cope with HIV.

You can check out the WHO stats if you need proof of what im saying. If you think women who can exit this job ejoyed it, I suggest you get help man.

Eh... the HIV rates in Africa and Eastern Europe are in the general populace, and to do with a massive lack of education on what constitutes safe sex. Has anybody in a position of authority ever claimed that the high rates of HIV in undeveloped countries are anything to do with legal, regulated prostitution? Can you provide these WHO stats? Incidentally, prostitution is legal and regulated in exactly two African countries.

I have no idea what "If you think women who can exit this job ejoyed it" means, but I do believe that if a woman decides, competely informed and of her own free will, that, rather than work in McDonalds or go on the dole, she would like to be a prostitute, she should not be criminalised for it

T runner

28064212 wrote: »

Eh... the HIV rates in Africa and Eastern Europe are in the general populace, and to do with a massive lack of education on what constitutes safe sex. Has anybody in a position of authority ever claimed that the high rates of HIV in undeveloped countries are anything to do with legal, regulated prostitution? Can you provide these WHO stats? Incidentally, prostitution is legal and regulated in exactly two African countries.

I have no idea what "If you think women who can exit this job ejoyed it" means, but I do believe that if a woman decides, competely informed and of her own free will, that, rather than work in McDonalds or go on the dole, she would like to be a prostitute, she should not be criminalised for it

Just on HIV. A growing number of Irish males are insisting on vaginal and oral sex without condoms, which is extremy dangerous for the girl. She risks repurcussions from her "protectors" if she doesnt please their clients though.

Your assumption that a prostitute is a woman who decides, "competely informed and of her own free will" is naive. 90% of prostuttes are not Irish. they will generally have histories of sexual abuse, addiction, mental health troubles and may have been involved as prostitutes in other countries before been "moved" here. The idea of a woman having a free choice may apply only to a very small amount of prostitutes. They are by and large extremely vulnerable women.

Trying to prosecute such women is wrong. Legalising prostitution is also wrong, however.

There are two parties in the act. If we accept that many women are vulnerable then we must accept that the only party who really has a choice in this is the client. He may be abusing a women (if she is there under duress or is vulnerable). If a man has sex with a woman who is only there because she is vulnerable then he is guilty of sexual abuse. If he hires a prostitute then he is in fact saying, "there is a high chance that this woman is only here becuase she is vulnerable, i dont care Im having sex with her anyway". This man deserves imprisonment.

I would agree with a model where demand is reduced by criminalising the client side. By targettting the remaining pimps, sex traffickers etc and by re-habilitating the women to try and get them back into society.

28064212

T runner wrote: »

Just on HIV. A growing number of Irish males are insisting on vaginal and oral sex without condoms, which is extremy dangerous for the girl. She risks repurcussions from her "protectors" if she doesnt please their clients though.

Your assumption that a prostitute is a woman who decides, "competely informed and of her own free will" is naive. 90% of prostuttes are not Irish. they will generally have histories of sexual abuse, addiction, mental health troubles and may have been involved as prostitutes in other countries before been "moved" here. The idea of a woman having a free choice may apply only to a very small amount of prostitutes. They are by and large extremely vulnerable women.

Trying to prosecute such women is wrong. Legalising prostitution is also wrong, however.

There are two parties in the act. If we accept that many women are vulnerable then we must accept that the only party who really has a choice in this is the client. He may be abusing a women (if she is there under duress or is vulnerable). If a man has sex with a woman who is only there because she is vulnerable then he is guilty of sexual abuse. If he hires a prostitute then he is in fact saying, "there is a high chance that this woman is only here becuase she is vulnerable, i dont care Im having sex with her anyway". This man deserves imprisonment.

I would agree with a model where demand is reduced by criminalising the client side. By targettting the remaining pimps, sex traffickers etc and by re-habilitating the women to try and get them back into society.

You are equating trafficking and forced prostitution with legalised, regulated prostitution. But the former is not made legal because the latter is.

What is your take on this scenario: a woman who decides, competely informed and of her own free will, that, rather than work in McDonalds or go on the dole, she would like to be a prostitute. She was not coerced, she was not trafficked, she is not on drugs, she employs herself, she was not abused as a child, she practices sex that is as safe as possible and she has no hangups about whether men see her as a sex object or not. Should what she wants to do be illegal? Why?

Kiki10

Kiki10 wrote: »

6000 people have HIV or AIDS at the moment in Ireland (The states guess). If you contract this disease you will naturally live 10 years. With medication you may live 20 years like a wasted skeleton. I would ask any fella here to please think of how you would tell your parents, wife or girlfriend or indeed children, that you have HIV and maybe they need to get tested. These unfortunate women usually come to violent ends. I understand people think theres loads of money in it, but name any retired hookers living the good life locally?

Where do you get this belief that its common for prostitutes to have sex without condoms? Some prostitutes will charge extra for sex without a condom but they're a minority compared with those that practice all the safety measures they can considering the type of interactions they have. [I'm assuming we're talking about Ireland and not some third world country?]

As for naming any retired hookers, how do you tell that they were hookers in the first place? Frankly, your post oozes lack of knowledge on the subject.

T runner wrote: »

Just on HIV. A growing number of Irish males are insisting on vaginal and oral sex without condoms, which is extremy dangerous for the girl. She risks repurcussions from her "protectors" if she doesnt please their clients though.

Can I get some stats on this growing number wanting unprotected sex? Cause I'm guessing its pretty much the same number that always wanted it.

There are some escorts that will do without condoms for a fee and there are those that won't. Just as there are those that will kiss customers (for a fee) and those that won't. Each girl will learn to "please" their customers in their own way.

Your assumption that a prostitute is a woman who decides, "competely informed and of her own free will" is naive. 90% of prostuttes are not Irish. they will generally have histories of sexual abuse, addiction, mental health troubles and may have been involved as prostitutes in other countries before been "moved" here. The idea of a woman having a free choice may apply only to a very small amount of prostitutes. They are by and large extremely vulnerable women.

Any generalisation on this subject is naive. We're talking individuals here. Oh, its so much easier to put them into vague groupings, but ultimately they will have their own choices either made by them or for them.

As for this small amount having free will... err... I'm always curious where they get these states/percentages from. Its not as if they (the researchers i.e. Ruhama) bothered to interview everyone. Just that select grouping of theirs. Awesome.

Personally, I believe some are forced into it either by other people, bad choices, financial pressures, or simply to make €150-€250 for 1 hours work. Which is all the more reason for the industry to be taken out of the shadows where the prostitutes can be given other options if they want out.

Trying to prosecute such women is wrong. Legalising prostitution is also wrong, however.

You can't have it both ways. By refusing to give them a voice you're ensuring that there are going to be prosecuted both within and outside the law. You yourself have stated how many of them are forced into their work, and yet, there is no desire to help them. Instead more prosecution.

There are two parties in the act. If we accept that many women are vulnerable then we must accept that the only party who really has a choice in this is the client. He may be abusing a women (if she is there under duress or is vulnerable). If a man has sex with a woman who is only there because she is vulnerable then he is guilty of sexual abuse. If he hires a prostitute then he is in fact saying, "there is a high chance that this woman is only here becuase she is vulnerable, i dont care Im having sex with her anyway". This man deserves imprisonment.

Well done. You've moved from talking about two parties, and just removed one of them. Awesome. Except, that you're ignoring ignorance. How does a customer know she is there against her hidden will? Do you always know when someone lies to you?

Especially, from a woman who's job is to manipulate men? To manipulate the men's ego's, and bodies? Wow. I'm impressed if you do.

And what if, the woman is there of her own free will? She's putting herself through college, the sex pays for her rent now that Welfare is no longer enough, she needs the money for cancer drug treatments for her father who can't get welfare assistance? Hell, what if she actually wants the money for her own sake?

How is the customer supposed to know all of this?

If a man or woman hires a prostitute they're likely saying "I have a need to be fulfilled. It might be sexual, it might not. This is great. So easy. So simple. Costs a bit, but hey, its worth it." - Just as likely as your scenario.

And you're awfully naive if you don't understand that many of these customers will be particularly vulnerable themselves.

I would agree with a model where demand is reduced by criminalising the client side. By targettting the remaining pimps, sex traffickers etc and by re-habilitating the women to try and get them back into society.

Which guarantees that the only customers a prostitute can have are the psychos, weirdos, wackos etc. Because you're removing the customer base that are normal people looking for fill a basic need that they aren't getting outside. I get the feeling that you believe that all these customers are sicko sex addicts with some form of disorder or such. Well, they're not. They're normal people.

The thing is that society has already failed these women. What do you think has changed in the meantime that will make rejoining the rat race any more attractive? They're still going to face problems if uneducated. They're still going to face problems with income if they can't get work. They're still going to do drugs if there is no positive alternative. Where are they supposed to go?

You can't sweep them under the carpet. Ahh damn, I should have said rejoin society. But it means the same thing. Out of sight, out of mind. Have your problems, but don't do anything which we might disapprove of. How very sympathetic.

Simply put, nothing will change until we start providing these people with choice. Cutting off their only income is not going to work. Instead, you lure them away with better paying jobs that offer a measure of security. IF they are safe and secure in their own (still talking about prostitution) jobs, then they will have the chance to think about moving to something else. Your way ensures that they will never see past sex for answers.

Mike 1972

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

It seems that most of these women on the escort sites are foreign, and move cities every couple of weeks, and are replaced by new women based in the same apartment.

Doesnt necessairly they are being unwillingly traffiked.

The company I work for currently has number of agency workers from Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Pakistan, South Africa and Scotland. There are Permanent staff from England, Poland and the Republic of Ireland (Its based in NI)

How many of us have been forced to work there by traffikers ?

Distorted wrote: »

Why is The Netherlands always taken as an example of the perfect dealing with prostitution? Most of it is in Amsterdam, the red light zone is mainly for tourists.

Oh really now ? I guess someone forgot to tell the good people of Alkmaar, Arnhem, Den Haag, Deventer, Eindhoven, Groningen, Haarlem, Heerlen, Leeuwarden, Nijmegen, Rotterdam and Utrecht.

miec

So do one night stands; criminalise them?

No where in my post did I say criminalise it, I am coming from a purely moral / spiritual stance. I also believe that one night stands divorce sexuality from spirituality. I am not sure whether criminalising prostitution is the right way to deal with it but prostitution, one night stands or soulless sex are indicative of troubled sexuality. I personally do not believe that anyone genuinely enjoys selling their body for sex and I would argue that their decision to sell their bodies comes from a damaged self. Equally those who pay for sex also have a distorted view of sex. So criminalising a sexual illness is a waste of time. Change the perceptions of sex and the desire for soulless sex / prostitution and so forth will drop away.

28064212

miec wrote: »

No where in my post did I say criminalise it, I am coming from a purely moral / spiritual stance. I also believe that one night stands divorce sexuality from spirituality. I am not sure whether criminalising prostitution is the right way to deal with it but prostitution, one night stands or soulless sex are indicative of troubled sexuality. I personally do not believe that anyone genuinely enjoys selling their body for sex and I would argue that their decision to sell their bodies comes from a damaged self. Equally those who pay for sex also have a distorted view of sex. So criminalising a sexual illness is a waste of time. Change the perceptions of sex and the desire for soulless sex / prostitution and so forth will drop away.

Now that's a stance I can agree with. Not the actual content, but the stance of it. I think sex can be a purely physical thing, but that's my opinion and I wouldn't force it on anybody.

ShooterSF

miec wrote: »

No where in my post did I say criminalise it, I am coming from a purely moral / spiritual stance. I also believe that one night stands divorce sexuality from spirituality. I am not sure whether criminalising prostitution is the right way to deal with it but prostitution, one night stands or soulless sex are indicative of troubled sexuality. I personally do not believe that anyone genuinely enjoys selling their body for sex and I would argue that their decision to sell their bodies comes from a damaged self. Equally those who pay for sex also have a distorted view of sex. So criminalising a sexual illness is a waste of time. Change the perceptions of sex and the desire for soulless sex / prostitution and so forth will drop away.

It's pretty hard to argue with something that doesn't exist. Sorry I mean something for which there is no proof for it's existence.

miec

It's pretty hard to argue with something that doesn't exist. Sorry I mean something for which there is no proof for it's existence.

Lol, ah sure I knew I'd be stepping into the whole quagmire of whether a God or something exists once I mentioned the 's' word...for me life is more than just facts, material proof and such like. Just a different point of view from my own perspective and belief system.

miec

miec wrote: »

one night stands or soulless sex are indicative of troubled sexuality.

How?

I personally do not believe that anyone genuinely enjoys selling their body for sex and I would argue that their decision to sell their bodies comes from a damaged self.

Honestly, I don't know if they do indeed enjoy it or hate it. I'm sure some enjoy it. But then you'd probably call them weirdo's for doing so.

Equally those who pay for sex also have a distorted view of sex.

The thing is that for many people the normal courtship rituals don't work. Either they're particularly shy, suffer some social disorder, or just have something which turns the opposite sex off them.

I have quite heavy essential tremor. This means that my shaking is rather pronounced, and often commented upon. Whilst growing up and well into my twenties I found it extremely difficult to form any sort of relationship with Irish women, because well, the range of reactions i received went from sympathetic (oh, you poor dear) to being called a freak. Simply because I shake all the time. So for people like myself, prostitution provides an avenue where we can learn to have sex, which in turn creates confidence to deal with other areas of their lives.

I've been to prostitutes both here in Ireland and abroad. My view of sex is rather conventional and timid. Oh, I'm aware of all that goes on, but my tastes are all rather normal.

[On a side note, I haven't paid for sex in years. I've learned ways of dealing both with my shakes and also how to date effectively. But I can still remember the awkwardness of being excluded from the normal Irish dating scene]

So criminalising a sexual illness is a waste of time. Change the perceptions of sex and the desire for soulless sex / prostitution and so forth will drop away.

Wanting to have sex is not an illness. Hell, wanting to have companionship is not an illness. The fact that you believe that it is, is a definite indication that some perceptions about sex should indeed be changed.

T runner

T runner wrote: »

But youre again assuming the fact that the fee for a prostitute is on average 200 euro per hour. Can you substantiate that?

Well, if you go by the websites that cater for the independent & agency escorts in this country, the cost if on average between €150-€200 for 1 hour. Of course, extra's of style, position, dress, and extra time all cost more.

Also you are claiming that a prostitute keeps 100% of her earnings. What about her handlers?

And you're making the assumption that all prostitutes have handlers. Some will, some won't. Not all escorts operate the same way. They might be in brothels, be independent, be touring escorts, be streetwalkers, etc. Different circumstances are likely to apply depending on the case by case of the escort in question.

There are no jobs whise function is to take degradation from sick men. It is contrary to the UN declaration of rights.

Firstly it is your opinion that people that go to prostitutes are sick. As with the case of the prostitutes there will be different backgrounds and circumstances with each customer. Some will indeed be "sick" (whatever it is that is sick), and some will be perfectly normal people.

Secondly, prostitutes can and will refuse customers if they break the rules that they have set down. In Australian brothels escorts inspect their customers bodies, and can refuse customers if they feel they're not healthy enough.

While, in some cases, like trafficking and slave type brothels, the prostitute may not be able to refuse, you're painting the whole industry as being the same.

They are at greater risk becuase of the nature of the job and the type of client that wishes to use prostitutes. They are also at risk becuase they are generally vulnerable women.

What sort of person goes to a prostitute? I'd love to know the "types".

And they are at risk because they have no rights in the current system. No legal protection. By keeping them in the dark you're ensuring that abuse will remain.

They can only be protected by keeping them out of a degrading abusive activity like prostitution.

How do you intend to prevent them? People break the law all the time for the sake of convenience, never mind about survival. What alternatives are you offering these people?

You are not protecting vulnerable women by allowing them to enter prostitution. You protect them by criminalising the scumbag clients who doesnt care taht he may be having sex with a woman who would not be there only out of desperation, mental illness, addiction, or childhood abuse. Having sex with such a person is abuse. You do not protect taht person in any way by allowing to be abused. Abuse and degradation should not be legalised.

I agree with you. Abuse and degradation should not be legalised. But then neither should blind ignorance. Or the criminalisation of something that would only make things worse. By hitting all customers you make sure that the normal (safe) customers are no longer available, forcing the escorts to accept customers they wouldn't normally accept. Thereby putting them in more danger.

And secondly, even if your plan worked... what would you expect these prostitutes to do instead to make money?

Demand is driving the industry NOT supply. Attack the abusive punter. It has worked in Sweden, and re-habilitate all women who need to back into society.

What do you mean by re-habilitate? Some specifics please.

Attacking the demand will have different results to attacking the supply. If jailtime is on the cars for the Irish middle class male punter then supply will dry up.

Unlikely. It will just drive it further underground. Despite serious jail time for people either selling or in possession of hard drugs in this country, we still have a growing problem. Why would prostitution be any different?

"A product" you mean the prostitute? What a grotesque inhiman degrading description! If you have sex with someone it is up to you to make sure that they are not agreeing to sex becuase they are in an extremely vulnerable situation. If you cannot decipher this then you cannot have sex because you may be having sex with someone who is vulnerable which amounts to abuse.

Rubbish. While I agree that some prostitutes are indeed in a "vulnerable" situation, removing their income without replacing it with something else, is worse. IF it is as you suggest whereby they have to earn money to pay their handlers, pimps, etc, then by removing their income you're placing them in a greater position of danger.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Provide alternatives, and then seek to remove the industry. (Or more realistically... limit it)

1)If you can provide decent alternatives (income) for prostitutes, then they will have the option to choose something else.
2) If you bring prostitution within the limits of the law, you can provide counseling, protection, medical advice, education etc to the prostitutes, giving them the chance to choose for themselves.
2B) By bringing prostitution within the limits of the law, you can monitor those licensed to act in prostitution, and check to make sure there is no abuse, and can reduce the negative influence of handlers, pimps, etc.
2C) By bringing prostitution within the limits of the law, customers can be regulated better to ensure safety for prostitutes.

But doing anything else is naive. Prostitution is going to continue despite greater attempts to stamp it out. And such attempts are likely to just make the life of the average prostitute that much harder. If this is really about the prostitutes and making their lives better, rather than some moral compass issue then you would understand that.

ShooterSF

miec wrote: »

Lol, ah sure I knew I'd be stepping into the whole quagmire of whether a God or something exists once I mentioned the 's' word...for me life is more than just facts, material proof and such like. Just a different point of view from my own perspective and belief system.

Ah it doesn't really matter if you believe in that stuff or not as long as you are willing to admit not everyone shares your views and therefore shouldn't have their life choices dictated by your morals.

If no one is hurt and both parties are happy to take part who are you to tell them it's wrong?

Distorted

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Oh really now ? I guess someone forgot to tell the good people of Alkmaar, Arnhem, Den Haag, Deventer, Eindhoven, Groningen, Haarlem, Heerlen, Leeuwarden, Nijmegen, Rotterdam and Utrecht.

De goede mensen of the cities you have given exampes of will tell you that the red light district is mainly in Amsterdam, and for tourists, and that they cannot abide the supposedly controlled, drugs connected, primarily trafficked prostitution zones in other Dutch cities. And if you think the prostitution area of Leeuwarden is large, then veel gluk but you might want to wrap up warmly. In Utrect, the area between Hoog Catherine Shopping Centre and the bus station is not somwhere the ordinary person would wish to linger too long after dark and the English garden park is a haven for male prostitution!

The Dutch experience of more open, more regulated control of prostitution is not that it does not free up the majority of prostitutes from control by pimps and give them some kind of wonderful career, but that it provides an almost perfect setting for trafficking, drugs rings, exploitation of young girls, and worse.

I think too many people on this thread have been reading/watching Belle De Jour and have this wonderful fantasy about how idyllic the life of a prostitute can be, if only some people can contorl it enough to set the right conditions. My personal favourite was the one who wanted to be the male prostitute earning bundles of cash.

Distorted

FoxT wrote: »

Prostitution is in itself undesirable.

Nevertheless, there will always be a demand for it, and therefore it will always be available.

Given that it will always exist, society has the options of permission, prohibition, or regulation.

Prohibition does not work. It has been tried with drugs, alcohol, prostitution, and is demonstrably ineffective.

Permission may make life easier in some ways for individual prostitutes but does not address any of the harmful effects or public health issues that are associated with prostitution.

In terms of availability, prohibition = permission, no real difference.

This leaves us with regulation, which IMO is the least undesirable option.

Probably the most realistic post on this thread so far, rather than unrealistic, idealistic codswallop.

Mmmn, lets trap young girls into prostitution by calling it a "career". Great idea. Why has no-one in the history of the world thought of that before? Oh lets think. They have. They are called pimps. In Amsterdam, prostitution was traditonally controlled by the town council who had exclusive rights to the prostitutes, in the 18th Century...

Distorted

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I agree. Could we please discuss the issue at hand rather than deciding who is and who is not a lawyer? Our positions should stand on their own merits, not any claim that we are this or that. Thanks.

/mod.

Drkpower claimed that I did not understand the legal basis of the floodgates arguement and that he did because he was a lawyer. He then did not understand the legal explanation given because he is not a lawyer (as in being legally qualified) and repeatedly asked for it again and again.

It is relevant, as is being untruthful about one's experiences and qualifications in order to strengthen a person's arguement. It diminishes the thread if someone makes obviously false claims about their personal qualifications and experience.

sam34

miec wrote: »

I am coming from a purely moral / spiritual stance

that much is clear, but you should not try and enforce your morals/spirituality on others

miec wrote: »

I also believe that one night stands divorce sexuality from spirituality

fair enough, you're entitled to believe that. it doesnt make you right, though.
a lot of people would feel that the association of sex with spirituality is what has created a lot of the unhealthy attitudes to sex that exist in this country

miec wrote: »

one night stands or soulless sex are indicative of troubled sexuality

thats not a statement of fact, thats your opinion.

miec wrote: »

Change the perceptions of sex and the desire for soulless sex / prostitution and so forth will drop away.

or maybe if teh perception that sex is something "spiritual" is changed then teh desire for one night stands will increase as people realise that sex is just an expression of human needs and desires, rather than a contrived spiritual experience.

drkpower

Distorted wrote: »

I think too many people on this thread have been reading/watching Belle De Jour and have this wonderful fantasy about how idyllic the life of a prostitute can be, if only some people can contorl it enough to set the right conditions.

Why do you misrepresent the argument that (almost) everyone who is advocating legal and regulated prostitution is actually making? Is it because it is easier to argue against your perceptions rather than the reality?

Aside from the occasional fruitcake, noone is arguing that being engaged in prostitution is idyllic. While I am not going to summarise everyone's argument, the core of the pro-regulation argument is two-fold:
1. The state should not criminalise the private decisions of two consenting adults;
2. Many, not all, of the dangers of prostitution would be better dealt with by regulation rather than by criminalisation.

Try and deal with those issues rather than with the idea you have in your head of what other people are advocating, and why. You might learn something....;)

Distorted

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Argument from authority is, as pointed out, bad enough. However it is worth noting that certain "authorities" actually are even worse than even that as they skew results rather than add useful data.

However people such as that should realise that their arguments from authority based upon their own anecdotes and experiences in the role are worse than inadmissible… that are likely statistically skewed and damaging.

This is a subjective point but nonetheless a valid one. Subjective points do not seem to be popular on this thread but if one were conducting any kind of academic study or report prior to legislation/regulation, they would need to be addressed. And to be perfectly frank, those mainly argueing against subjective points on this thread and demanding links to reports and articles are actually the ones not providing them to prove their own arguements.

A further subjective point is that increasing openess of an "undesirable" sector in society decreases the moral boundaries of the general populace become skewed, leading to a degredation in society. e.g. the thought is that more, readily available porn increases the demand for porn. One could apply the same arguement to prostitution. Therefore who is to say that the present system, where it is permitted but not encouraged, is not actually quite successful at allowing those who are comfortable with it/need it to avail themselves of it and those who wish to provide it can do so?

Now, I'm not going to pretend I'm something I'm not and claim to be a charity worker who sees prostitutes on a regular basis. Rather I'm just a rather average member of society but I don't see why my concerns should be swept aside for the benefits of a minority who are already permitted to operate.

Now, for some reason, morals are unpopular on this thread. In fact, to read this thread, one would be given the impression that morals are pointless and do not even exist. However the fact remains that most human societies have boundaries to what is considered morally objectionable, and you will most likely not be successful in any moves to regulate if you choose to simply ignore those moral objections.

What remains unclear is how the advocates of greater regulation and access to legal, social and employment rights would bring it about. None of them have ever been anything but vague. Most prostitutes who don't have pimps would be independent contractors and not attract employment rights anyway. Creating a system of regulation in the Dutch example has provided an environment for mainly non-Dutch trafficking of prostitutes to thrive and the Dutch are currently attempting to crack down on this and change their system with new legislation.

Those employed in other high risk professions generally undergo quite a rigorous training in order to prepare them for that. Prostitutes do not undergo any kind of formalised training, hence one would assume they are less prepared to undertake the stresses such a high risk option would entail. I'm not convinced that marketing it as a career option, running college courses in it and providing on the job training is realistic. By regulating it, you risk losing the elements of the job that make it attractive to those working in it and to some of the clients who use it.

I'm not also convinced with the arguement that nearly all of the problems with prostitution are as a result of its being somewhat "underground". I think this is naive. It is a sector with a unique set of requirements and it is entirely possible that this is what the nature of the sector entails. And that greater regulation may simply create a black market which lies under the regulated sector, which in itself presents greater problems that the present situation.

As for changing people's morals, thats almost akin to brainwashing. People should have the freedom to decide their own moral values, not have them imposed upon them by other people. Despite the history of Ireland, most people seem to have no difficulty in having sex before marriage or with one night stands, so its disinengenious to argue that it is Ireland's moral stance that makes prostitution generally undesireable but tolerated to a certain degree.

drkpower wrote: »

Aside from the occasional fruitcake, noone is arguing that being engaged in prostitution is idyllic. While I am not going to summarise everyone's argument, the core of the pro-regulation argument is two-fold:
1. The state should not criminalise the private decisions of two consenting adults;
2. Many, not all, of the dangers of prostitution would be better dealt with by regulation rather than by criminalisation.

Do you have any examples of [1]?
What types of regulation would you advocate?
Can you provide any reports or studies to back up [2]?

drkpower wrote: »

Try and deal with those issues rather than with the idea you have in your head of what other people are advocating, and why. You might learn something....;)

A wise person chooses who they learn from carefully. Please spare me the condesending quack pyschology - it sounds like brainwashing!

Eliot Rosewater

If you've a problem with moderation PM the moderators; arguing with mods on-thread is not allowed as per the charter.

/mod

drkpower

Distorted wrote: »

Do you have any examples of [1]?

Well as you seem to advocate the criminalisation of private decisions of two consenting adults, you should probably cite other examples in support of your case.

In any case, there have been many examples of cases where the state criminalises the private decisions of two consenting adults. Thankfully they are becoming less and less common. And where they remain, there should be a strong evidenced-based rationale for their presence. I havent seen any such evidence from yourself or others with your view.

Distorted wrote: »

What types of regulation would you advocate?
Can you provide any reports or studies to back up [2]?

The basic principle is that criminalisation of a private consenting decision requires the advocate of criminalisation to show convincingly that criminalisation is better for all those involved. You or others havent come close to showing that.

Distorted wrote: »

A wise person chooses who they learn from carefully. Please spare me the condesending quack pyschology - it sounds like brainwashing

What's with the tetchy defensiveness? I was simply pointing out that erecting and knocking down, as you tried to do, the strawman that the pro-regulation side believe that regulation will make things 'idyllic' is a little bit silly. That is hardly condescending. Its fairly obvious - you probably even realised that yourself.

Distorted wrote: »

People should have the freedom to decide their own moral values, not have them imposed upon them by other people. People should have the freedom to decide their own moral values, not have them imposed upon them by other people.

Well done; you seem to have had an epiphany of sorts. That is what many people here are saying. Of course, it seems that you want that freedom for yourself, but wont allow it to those who do not see sex as something sacred or moral and want to trade it freely.

miec

Ah it doesn't really matter if you believe in that stuff or not as long as you are willing to admit not everyone shares your views and therefore shouldn't have their life choices dictated by your morals.

I completely accept that not everyone, well actually probably a lot of people do not accept my viewpoint, that is okay by me but I equally am never going to accept that prostitution is acceptable form of sexual expression. Mine is just another viewpoint in this forum. All of my responses are based on my personal viewpoint and experience of life to date. I am not expecting anyone to agree with me, I am just participating in this debate with my viewpoint.

Klaz in response to your post, first of I commend your honesty and so I will be frank too. I have had one night stands and I came from a place of crippling low self esteem, I divorced the essence of myself to be something I was not. At the time I bull****ted myself that I was having fun, etc but in reality I wasn't, it was crap for me. I accept that not everyone sees it like that, just as not everyone sees that prostitution is immoral but for me it is. I see it that a person who places a price on their body and their sexuality has to act out in that role. They cannot be their real selves. Everything is determined by price. For me sex needs to a loving, honest act where the two people respect and care for each other and themselves. So nowadays I don't indulge in it but I still have hormones, needs and wants, I just accept that I am not going to use some man for my own sexual gratification. I want to know him as a person first and see him not what he can provide for me. That is why I term it as soulless sex, by treating a person as a commidity or to gratify yourself then the essence of them is sidelined.

that much is clear, but you should not try and enforce your morals/spirituality on others

So I should remain silent then...is that not coming from a fundamentalist viewpoint?

one night stands or soulless sex are indicative of troubled sexuality

thats not a statement of fact, thats your opinion.

True but what else do we have opinions, views etc, this topic is highly subjective. Are we not all expressing opinions?

miec

miec wrote: »

Klaz in response to your post, first of I commend your honesty and so I will be frank too. I have had one night stands and I came from a place of crippling low self esteem, I divorced the essence of myself to be something I was not. At the time I bull****ted myself that I was having fun, etc but in reality I wasn't, it was crap for me.

The thing I find troubling is that you put one-night-stands on the same level as going to a prostitute. Personally I don't have anything against either. I tend to avoid one nighters simply because the chances of seeing that person again is minimal, so I usually date instead.

You have had bad experiences with one night stands. Fine. I can appreciate and probably understand where you're coming from. But prostitution is not a one night stand. Although I suppose that really depends on the customer, and their priorities. But for many customers they will visit the same escort repeatedly building up a "relationship" (of sorts) and will know beforehand that their needs will be met. There will be shared interests, shared humor, etc. Sure, its highly unlikely to develop into anything more substantual but then most dates I have had in the last few years fizzled into nothing after a few times meeting.

In Australia, I dated a stripper. Used to go regularly to the lap dancing club every week. Built up a bit of a friendship, since I never got a dance with her. Eventually she asked me out, and we ended up dating for 3 months. That experience opened my eyes about sex and intimacy. Its not something I'm likely to repeat but through conversations with her & her friends (who were "part-time" escorts) I saw a different world. One that is very easy to make false assumptions about unless you've had the chance to view it up close.

I accept that not everyone sees it like that, just as not everyone sees that prostitution is immoral but for me it is. I see it that a person who places a price on their body and their sexuality has to act out in that role.

I extremely dislike people who get drunk, cause fights, or generally make an ass of themselves in public. Considering the issue of alcohol in this country, there are likely more alcoholics than prostitutes/customers combined. Now, if you consider the negative effects of alcohol in this country, you might understand why I consider excessive drinking as being immoral. But I'm not expecting it to be made illegal, with sellers of alcohol being arrested.

They cannot be their real selves. Everything is determined by price.

Which you do not, and cannot know. You're making assumptions based on what you want to believe. If you were to become a prostitute, then maybe, this would form the basis of this opinion. But you're not a prostitute so...

For me sex needs to a loving, honest act where the two people respect and care for each other and themselves. So nowadays I don't indulge in it but I still have hormones, needs and wants, I just accept that I am not going to use some man for my own sexual gratification. I want to know him as a person first and see him not what he can provide for me. That is why I term it as soulless sex, by treating a person as a commidity or to gratify yourself then the essence of them is sidelined.

Everyone has needs. Every relationship I have been in, or seen others in has had some give or take involved. I can certainly appreciate your somewhat romantic view of things. I share it myself. But I don't agree with placing sex on a pedestal. Its an action. Without love, intimacy, humor, etc it is just an activity. Nothing more. It is love or lust that makes sex special.

nozzferrahhtoo

T runner wrote: »

Just as there is no reason to assume that a chef does not cook as many meals as a standard housewife. Its common sense really but heres a link to some durex survey People on average have sex 127 times per year. Thats only once every 3 days. Are you suggesting that a prostitute who has sex only
once every 3 days.

I am afraid your post is almost unreadable. It is spread out too much, and most of the grammar is non-sensical. Take the last sentence above for example. Is part of it missing or what?

However no I am not suggesting anything of the sort of straw man that you have built up above. I am merely pointing out:

1) that the claim that they engage with "dozens" of penies "per day" is clearly ridiculous. There is not even enough time in the day to do so and is entirely made up dishonestly to create an argument where none exists.
2) At 250 euro an hour a prostitute would have to only engage with 2 clients per week to obtain the same amount of income as I did working 5 days a week in Spar.
3) You have not backed up your claims of the numbers of clients involved with a single link, study or statistic.... nothing at all but one single solitary anecdote from one prostitute who you quoted. And even that anecdote mentioned the number "10" which is a lot less than "dozens" as anyone with basic maths skills will tell you.

They are the only points I was making and which you should reply to. Your invented points that you have put in my mouth are nothing to do with me so you are wasting your time asking me to post links to back up points I never once made.

T runner wrote: »

Just on HIV. A growing number of Irish males are insisting on vaginal and oral sex without condoms, which is extremy dangerous for the girl. She risks repurcussions from her "protectors" if she doesnt please their clients though.

Exactly one of the reasons for normalising the industry. The fact that so many women have "handlers" and "traffickers" is the very thing we wish to prevent.

nozzferrahhtoo

miec wrote: »

I am wearing my bias on my sleeve, I do find prosititution immoral because it divorces spirituality from sexuality.

You are assuming de facto that that is a bad thing. Not all sex has to be about love/spirituality/commitment just like not all eating has to be about nutrition.

nozzferrahhtoo

Distorted wrote: »

This is a subjective point but nonetheless a valid one.

My point was about subjectivity, not itself a subjective point. There is a difference.

Distorted wrote: »

those mainly argueing against subjective points on this thread and demanding links to reports and articles are actually the ones not providing them to prove their own arguements.

Trust me when I make a point I will happily back it up with links, studies and arguments. However I am not engaged in making points, I am engaged in showing what the points being made by others are unsubstantiated, baseless and fallacious.

Every single argument thus far on this thread for either making prostitution illegal, or for maintaining the taboos associated with it, have themselves been baseless, or based on entirely made up data or arguments, or have appealed to problems of prostitution that appear to only exist BECAUSE of the taboos we maintain. Hell, one guy on here even had to wholly invent the statistic that prostitutes engage in penetration "dozens of times a day" in order to make his argument. Clearly there is a problem here if people have to make up insane, even impossible, numbers in order to support their points.

Remember you do not have to make a point of your own in order to show the point of someone else is in error.

Distorted wrote: »

e.g. the thought is that more, readily available porn increases the demand for porn.

A) You have not posted a single reason to think that this is true and
even if you did you have not shown it is relevant. Unless you show porn is a BAD thing, then what relevance does an increasing demand for it have? You literally are talking like you have pre-assumed it to be a bad thing and therefore an increase in demand for it is also a bad thing.

So even if your fantasy that normalising prostitution would increase the demand for prostitution, which you have not substantiated in any way... you can not simply assume that such an increase would defacto be a bad thing. Your argument contains too many assumptions.

Distorted wrote: »

Now, for some reason, morals are unpopular on this thread.

A disingenuous, pointless and baseless dig at the other posters here. Just because our morals do not match yours, does not mean morals themselves are unpopular here. It is all too easy to suggest people who do not share YOUR moral view point are in some way immoral or amoral.

It is one thing to have no base for your argument, it is entirely another to take pointless insulting digs at people to hide that fact however.

Distorted wrote: »

I'm not also convinced with the arguement that nearly all of the problems with prostitution are as a result of its being somewhat "underground". I think this is naive.

As above it is all too easy to declare something naive to make your argument sound better. However I also think it naive to think as you do, that their career being underground has no effect on their working environment.

It quite simply does. Prostitutes often have no one to turn to. They often do not report crimes against them to the police because of how their profession is viewed. They often hide their profession from their neighbours and friends and people they can turn to because of the taboos. They do not have the access to medical benefits, benefits of paying tax, working standards benefits and more that we all take for granted. And more.

If you really do insist on pulling this thread down to the level of name calling then yes I do find it highly naive to think that the working environment of these people is unaffected by the taboos we pile upon them, forcing them underground where their career is below the radar of those that would protect them.

Distorted wrote: »

As for changing people's morals, thats almost akin to brainwashing. People should have the freedom to decide their own moral values, not have them imposed upon them by other people.

Grasping at the language of conspiracy theories and dictatorships does not really help here. Morals are, by their very nature, social. They are the rules we agree on together for the best way for us to live together. They are not something therefore we can simply reach on a personal private level. They have to, by definition, involve other people… the rest of society.

No one is “brainwashing” here and such emotive use of language aids nothing. Morals are reached by discourse on the subjects involved and that is exactly what we are engaged in right now on this thread.

Simply calling such discourse “brainwashing” is nothing short of trying to shut conversation down… or a bad attempt at making those who feel discourse on the subject worth having feel guilty for doing so.

It is simply too easy, when you feel your position is unsupported or you are “losing” the argument, to come out with language like this in an attempt to shut down the conversation that is not going your way.

Thankfully however most people do not think as you do, as if they did it would be quickly realised that any social discourse on morals would fall under this axe, and nothing would ever by discussed anywhere.

Distorted

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My point was about subjectivity, not itself a subjective point. There is a difference.

Trust me when I make a point I will happily back it up with links, studies and arguments. However I am not engaged in making points, I am engaged in showing what the points being made by others are unsubstantiated, baseless and fallacious.

I look forward to that because none of the proponents of "normalising", "regulating" or whatever prostitution has done that so far. So your arguement is entirely theoretical and ideological and rather simplistic - you appear to be saying that because your arguement is right and others are wrong, you do not need to substantiate that arguement. To be honest, I'm coming to the conclusion that you are not entirely sure what you are argueing for and how it would work in practice. You just like the sound of it.

Your arguement then prevents you seriously answering any of the valid objections raised to changing the status quo - because all such objections are, according to you, "unsubstantiated, baseless and fallacious". In other words, no-one's viewpoint is valid but your own. And your own viewpoint is so valid it is beyond criticism. But how would you go about changing the status quo if you do not address any of the very understandable issues raised?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Every single argument thus far on this thread for either making prostitution illegal, or for maintaining the taboos associated with it, have themselves been baseless, or based on entirely made up data or arguments, or have appealed to problems of prostitution that appear to only exist BECAUSE of the taboos we maintain. Hell, one guy on here even had to wholly invent the statistic that prostitutes engage in penetration "dozens of times a day" in order to make his argument. Clearly there is a problem here if people have to make up insane, even impossible, numbers in order to support their points.

Remember you do not have to make a point of your own in order to show the point of someone else is in error.

Again, you have not addressed any of the concerns regulating or normalising prostitution might raise. How would you change the system without reassuring the doubters? Would you simply ride roughshod over people's views? How would you do this in a democratic society? Who would support you? Or is your arguement destined only to ever be theoretical? Are you, for example, sponsoring or encouraging legislation to be passed through Parliament and conducting research and reports into the viability of doing so?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A) You have not posted a single reason to think that this is true and
even if you did you have not shown it is relevant. Unless you show porn is a BAD thing, then what relevance does an increasing demand for it have? You literally are talking like you have pre-assumed it to be a bad thing and therefore an increase in demand for it is also a bad thing.

So even if your fantasy that normalising prostitution would increase the demand for prostitution, which you have not substantiated in any way... you can not simply assume that such an increase would defacto be a bad thing. Your argument contains too many assumptions.

So do you assume that the opposite is true? Why? Your response is equally subjective, but how would you persuade the powers that be that the risk is worth taking to change the status quo? No, my arguement here is that porn is not bad (and I am puzzled that you think it is) but that uncontrolled access to porn is bad.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As above it is all too easy to declare something naive to make your argument sound better. However I also think it naive to think as you do, that their career being underground has no effect on their working environment.

I have not said that and do not believe it. I do believe that the fact that prostitution has a stigma attached to it which leads its practitioners and clients to keep it at least partly hidden from the rest of society does not explain all the ills that afflict the sector.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It quite simply does. Prostitutes often have no one to turn to. They often do not report crimes against them to the police because of how their profession is viewed. They often hide their profession from their neighbours and friends and people they can turn to because of the taboos. They do not have the access to medical benefits, benefits of paying tax, working standards benefits and more that we all take for granted. And more.

If you really do insist on pulling this thread down to the level of name calling then yes I do find it highly naive to think that the working environment of these people is unaffected by the taboos we pile upon them, forcing them underground where their career is below the radar of those that would protect them.

I think this is really a question of stigmatisation and not purely the fact that the sector operates partly underground. Its not that hidden - any quick search on the internet or in a phone box in certain areas will quickly reveal that it is not.

I'm also not convinced that prostitutes are "forced" underground. Ditto their clients. There is nothing to stop a happy client or user being open about their experiences, and by their example, encouraging others to do so. Some people do but my guess would be that the vast majority don't. There is clearly something else at work. But really, there is nothing to stop people being honest and, if there is such a demand for the benefits of removing these taboos, I think you need to highlight the reasons that it is not done. Why, for example, do some people feel the need to maintain a facade of being one type of person in public (e.g. to their workmates, family and friends) while maintaining a secret private life? This sort of stigmatisation about sexual choices doesn't simply apply to prostitution, it applies to greater or lesser degrees to gay men on the down low, internet dating (to less extent than previously), excessive amounts of sleeping around, "dogging", internet brides, etc..

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Grasping at the language of conspiracy theories and dictatorships does not really help here. Morals are, by their very nature, social. They are the rules we agree on together for the best way for us to live together. They are not something therefore we can simply reach on a personal private level. They have to, by definition, involve other people… the rest of society.

No one is “brainwashing” here and such emotive use of language aids nothing. Morals are reached by discourse on the subjects involved and that is exactly what we are engaged in right now on this thread.

Simply calling such discourse “brainwashing” is nothing short of trying to shut conversation down… or a bad attempt at making those who feel discourse on the subject worth having feel guilty for doing so.

"Brainwashing" is a simple term to understand and doesn't necessarily imply dictatorships. I do however reserve the freedom to make up my own mind about things and not to be told or strongly guided as to what I should think by others. I am prepared to listen to well reasoned arguements but not to be simply told "You are wrong because I say so and because I am right, and I am so right that I will not even attempt to justify it".

I'm not a psychologist, but I'm pretty sure that any psychologist could tell you that presenting an arguement for something in such a way is doomed to failure. I'm also pretty sure that they would tell you that an individuals' morals are comprised of a combination of their experience of society and their own will. cf Hobbes, etc..

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is simply too easy, when you feel your position is unsupported or you are “losing” the argument, to come out with language like this in an attempt to shut down the conversation that is not going your way.

I couldn't agree more. That is exactly what you are trying to do, unsuccessfully.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Thankfully however most people do not think as you do, as if they did it would be quickly realised that any social discourse on morals would fall under this axe, and nothing would ever by discussed anywhere.

What, are you telling me that the majority (as in representing "most people") are in favour of "normalising" prostitution? If so, why is it not being done? How are you going to move this argument forwards from the theoretical to the practical?

Because all you have really done is to convince me of the importance of protecting vulnerable young women from being encouraged to enter into prostitution as some kind of viable career choice. By all means, protect and assist the prostitutes who are already involved, but don't market it as some kind of high paid career, "better" in some way than working in a Spar because its (allegedly) better paid (and I think you will find that outside the magical E250 per hour on here so oft mentioned you would think it was a minimum wage that it is only "better paid" than the Spar job because it entails less hours of work to achieve the same level or higher of payment).

The only people that will benefit is the pimps and the clients, not the prostitutes. Its still selling sex. Retain a sense of perspective. Prostitutes are not having sex with clients because they fancy them, hope to have a relationship with them or enjoy having sex. They are doing it for the money and wouldn't be having sex with that particular person with the exchange of money. The money replaces the normal social niceities of chatting someone up and/or choice about whether one party finds the other attractive enough to have sexual intercourse with. Its at the bottom end of the human evolutionary scale and perhaps thats why so many don't want to admit to it.

However, my position remains that some level of prostitution is necessary as it clearly serves a purpose, but that it should not be encouraged to proliferate. I simply think thats its a very difficult sector to regulate or "normalise" (whatever that is defined to mean) and I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that changing the current status quo would not create further, greater problems in the long term. I'm not saying certain changes wouldn't be beneficial, such as improving availability of health checks although I think enforcing a system of licensing would be too expensive in the current economic climate. (and wouldn't solve the black market issue but would improve client choice). But whenever another country's attempts to normalise it are mentioned, no-one on here seems to like them unless it has the magical word "Dutch" attached. e.g. no-one on here seems to support or even know much about tolerance zones and tolerated brothels which you do get in the UK, yet what are the red light zones in Nederland but tolerance zones.

nozzferrahhtoo

Distorted wrote: »

you appear to be saying that because your arguement is right and others are wrong, you do not need to substantiate that arguement.

If it appears that way then I have no idea why because that is certainly not the argument I am making nor the approach I am taking.

No, I would say 95% of what I am saying here is that the arguments for prostitution being illegal, immoral or taboo that have been presented so far on this thread are baseless and unsubstantiated and seem to be tied to nothing but personal bias.

So yes, as soon as I start making a counter argument you can rest assured I will present any links and evidence you want, but thus far all I have been concerned with mainly is knocking down the arguments thus far presented for the negative side against prostitution.

For example...

Distorted wrote: »

So do you assume that the opposite is true? Why?

No I do not. This is a thread that is essentially about whether it should be considered "wrong" or not. I am assuming nothing therefore.

Instead I am pointing out that the argument that regulating it will lead to more of it is a bad one. I think it is a bad one for two reasons. Firstly because it is unsubstantiated by any study or reference. I see no reason on offer to think it will increase if it were to become fully regulated and the taboos removed. Secondly it is irrelevant because saying there might be more of it is simply a random statement that is neither good nor bad. Unless you can show X is a bad or good thing then simply saying "There might be more of X" is a statement entirely without any useable content.

See what I mean? I do not have to argue a point, or argue the opposite, to show that the argument you are making yourself is both assumed and irrelevant. Again: You do not need to argue a point in order to knock another's point down.

The conversation is mostly about whether it is a bad thing or not. If it IS a bad thing then of course it follows that causing more of it is also a bad thing. Since however you have not yet done this, you are getting ahead of yourself by mentioning the possibility, let alone the fact that you have not substantiated that possibility in any way.

Distorted wrote: »

Its not that hidden

You misunderstand what I mean by hidden. Of course you can find it, and advertisements for it, if you go look. By hidden I mean that practitioners of it do not make themselves known to others, often to their friends and family, to the police when there is a problem and so on. There is a stigma attached to the taboos we place on this kind of work and this causes the workers to remain under the radar, despite the occasional business card stuck in a website or phonebox.

Distorted wrote: »

There is nothing to stop a happy client or user being open about their experiences, and by their example, encouraging others to do so.

Of course there is. The taboos we maintain and the stigma we attach to that line of work prevents them. Of course at the end of the day it is their "choice" and we can of course claim nothing is stopping them if they really want to make themselves known. However that is a little too easy an argument to make as we as a society pile on the incentives to make sure the "choice" tends to only go one way.

Simply saying there is “nothing stopping” people from doing something is too easy and often glosses over (probably intentionally) the problems those people are suffering from. Take domestic violence and rape for example. There is “nothing stopping” people reporting these crimes to the Police yet year after year we hear that many people are not. It is very important we address the reasons why they are not, rather than simply glossing over it and declaring there is “nothing stopping them”. It is merely a crass attempt to simplify the issue.

Distorted wrote: »

but don't market it as some kind of high paid career, "better" in some way than working in a Spar because its (allegedly) better paid

I at no point ever argued that it is a "better" career than anything else ever. Please keep your words out of my mouth. I clearly have enough of my own. It simply is not an argument I am making so sitting there telling me not to make it is superfluous and an attempt to obfuscate what I am actually saying.

Distorted wrote: »

Its still selling sex. Retain a sense of perspective.

Did I ever say it was not selling sex? Again you are now arguing against, or making points about, things that have absolutely no bearing on the person you are replying to. I am perfectly aware of what prostitution is, I do not need a monologue explaining it as this paragraph was.

Distorted wrote: »

I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that changing the current status quo would not create further, greater problems in the long term.

And I have not seen any evidence that it would not cause apple trees to spontaneously grow on the main street. You are talking about proving a negative here.

If you do any action X there are a million things that could happen, you can not go around proving they all will not before doing the action. If you did then nothing would ever get done. The question is what things do we have data or reasons to think may happen, not what evidence we are lacking to show what will not happen.

No, the approach is to consider the action based on what you can show will happen, or that there is any credence in thinking might happen not what you can not show will not happen.

Distorted wrote: »

(and wouldn't solve the black market issue but would improve client choice)

Agree, I do not think you can ever "solve" black market issues but you can minimise them. Cigarettes are a good example. Cheaper black market cigs are still available if you walk down certain Dublin streets. However having an above board option means most people do not obtain them from their, but from the "proper" sources. The black market issues is not, and may never, be "solved" but most people tend to opt for the above board option so they know they are getting quality product and they know their money is not going to unscrupulous destinations underground.

And they do that despite the fact that the customer option is a more expensive product than that sold on the street.

ZoeB

Hi I am researching this subject for a project and I would like to speak to men who visit prostitutes, particularly through the escort websites. Ive heard that 1 in 13 men in Ireland visit prostitutes and I want to see if this is really true. Does anyone think this is a realistic figure and is there anyone willing to talk to me regarding their experience and opinion?
Thank you,
Zoe