Prostitution

nozzferrahhtoo

ZoeB wrote: »

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.

How will talking to a couple of people on here who have visited them in ANY WAY at all confirm or debunk a figure of 1 in 13??

Maybe if you link us to the study where the number came to you first we can go through it together.

However watch your tenses, as "visit" and "have visited" are two massively different things... one suggesting that the men in question do so on a continual basis and the other not. In fact I would expect to find a large portion of the figures are made up of men who went once, or a number of times and then not again... which is massively different from men who go consistently.

T runner

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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?

No, its all there. That quote tells us that the average person has sex 127 times a year, only once every 3 days. Your assertion that a person with a healthy sex life has sex as often as a prostitute seems to be looking a little preposterous.

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.

Ignoring your claims about my dishonesty lets do simple calculation.

How many half hour sessions can fit in an 8 hour day?
Answer: Giving 5 minutes between clientes and 2 half hour breaks: 12 clients.

Now: how many clients can a person facilitate that is on 24/7 call?

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.

You have been ask to substantaite your assumption that a prostitute takes home 250 per hour into her hand. Where is the substantaition for this figure? What about her handlers?

We can see from the amnesty report that an average 9 to 5 day is spent in an apartment taking clients tahts 40 hours. Are you saying that a prostitute spend 38 hours of her working week waiting in her apartment doing nothing and only 2 hours with clients. Are you for real?

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.

Ironically and not -suprisingly you ahve not backed up your assertion that a prostitute has sex as much as a healthy normal female . i.e once every 3 days.

There are plenty of examples in the report citing that a prostitute sees several clients a day. Take your pick. There are none saying taht she sees only one client every 3 days.

And even that anecdote mentioned the number "10" which is a lot less than "dozens" as anyone with basic maths skills will tell you.

A lot? It is two less. She was on 9-5. There are many on 24/7.

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.

i.e You tell everyone to supply stats but are not capable of supplying any to back your arguments.

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.

If you attack demand, then handlers, traffickers and pimps reduce in number drastically.

I see you totally ignore the HSE reports showing teh ill-health of prostitutes in Ireland recorded during their check ups.

That was the whole basis of your point? Prostitutes only ahve sex a couple of times a week teherfore couldnt be unhealthy.

The litany of diseases, illnesses,a nd injuries recorded in these check ups are indicative of women having sex with several different partners per week and not 2 per day as you are suggesting.

ZoeB

Thanks but I would just like to get an idea of who uses them (age, marital status etc), why they use them, if most people who have visited them are on a one-off basis because of a drunken decision or if it is an intended and frequent occurance. If it is a compulsive feeling or a novelty.
I havent read a study saying 1 in 13 , I just heard this from someone who had heard it also so unfortunately I dont have a link to refer to, and I am not doing a statistical analysis I would just like to hear an honest experience from people who use them.
Thanks
Zoe

ShooterSF

miec wrote: »

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.

While I don't agree with your viewpoint on this particular issue that's not my problem here. I wouldn't try to change your viewpoint on the subject as most likely our underpinning beliefs differ too much to even start.
What does concern me is the impression I have of your viewpoint on liberty. This is my concern here. Even if I shared your beliefs on prostitution and sex in general I would still wish to see it made more open and available. The reason being that if something happens between two consenting adults with no direct negative effects on other people they should be free to do so regardless of my opinion. This is their right to liberty which is greater than my right to an opinion. Would you not agree?

seenitall

ShooterSF wrote: »

What does concern me is the impression I have of your viewpoint on liberty. This is my concern here. Even if I shared your beliefs on prostitution and sex in general I would still wish to see it made more open and available. The reason being that if something happens between two consenting adults with no direct negative effects on other people they should be free to do so regardless of my opinion. This is their right to liberty which is greater than my right to an opinion. Would you not agree?

(Excuse me if I answer this.) The right to liberty to have an opinion is just as great as the right to liberty of action, no more and no less. Besides which, opinions, thankfully, cannot be policed.

I have followed this thread with interest and am so far more on the pro-legalisation side of the discussion, although both sides provide some interesting arguments and things to consider.

Distorted

ShooterSF wrote: »

Even if I shared your beliefs on prostitution and sex in general I would still wish to see it made more open and available. The reason being that if something happens between two consenting adults with no direct negative effects on other people they should be free to do so regardless of my opinion. This is their right to liberty which is greater than my right to an opinion. Would you not agree?

In a civilised society, it is generally accepted that there are some universally agreed limits on liberty. People cannot do what they want all of the time simply because it doesn't have a direct adverse effect on others. There might not be a directly adverse effect but there might be an adverse effect on society in the long run. The same analogy could be applied to murder of one individual by another in private, where neither have families. Or to recreational use of drugs in a person's own home - but the supply chain and associated increase of drugs to other situations make a seemingly innocuous situation more harmful. In other words, situations are rarely as simple as this, and other factors have to be taken into account.

28064212

Distorted wrote: »

In a civilised society, it is generally accepted that there are some universally agreed limits on liberty. People cannot do what they want all of the time simply because it doesn't have a direct adverse effect on others. There might not be a directly adverse effect but there might be an adverse effect on society in the long run. The same analogy could be applied to murder of one individual by another in private, where neither have families. Or to recreational use of drugs in a person's own home - but the supply chain and associated increase of drugs to other situations make a seemingly innocuous situation more harmful. In other words, situations are rarely as simple as this, and other factors have to be taken into account.

Your analogies don't really work if the pro-legalisation side are also pro-legalisation of drugs and euthanasia.

Are you for the criminalisation of suicide? Or homosexuality? Or one-night-stands? There are quite a lot of people that would argue that they all have adverse effects on society in the long run

drkpower

28064212 wrote: »

Your analogies don't really work if the pro-legalisation side are also pro-legalisation of drugs and euthanasia.

They dont work at all, really!!

The chief reason that 'drugs' and euthanasia (or 'murdering someone in private', as Distorted calls it:D) are illegal are to protect the health of the individual, a duty one may reasonably argue the State is charged with.

While selling sex to multiple partners for money can have some health implications, so can having sex with multiple partners without money being involved, and the State hasnt seen fit to criminalise such behaviour, even where the behaviour is grossly irresponsible. Adding money to the transaction doesnt increase the health risks associated with the act itself. Distorted's 'analogy' would only be of value if it surrounded a hypothetical situation where cocaine was legal if given away free, or euthanasia was legal if not done for profit, but the mere addition of money to the transaction made it illegal. That is not the case.

So, criminalising 'selling sex' is not about the protection fo health; it is about the protection of 'morals', something the State should not be concerning itself with. As someone once said on this thread...... (i wonder who it was....;):D)

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

Distorted

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Not entirely - I have presented numerous links. It is your arguements which have been notable for being baseless and unsubstantiated. Whether they are based on personal bias, I cannot comment.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

So you keep saying...



Its a weak arguement and incredibly lazy if all you can do is knock down other arguements without providing any credible evidence to back up your points or any alternatives. And to be honest, your methods of knocking down other arguements have been very simplistic - to criticise them because, in your opinion, they are wrong. i.e. the opinion based on your own moral bias, which you criticise other people for having. Its not a very advanced method of discussion. It does not, for example, go anywhere near approaching the realms of a critical analysis.



Most of the information which you argue against is readily available in the public domain with very minimal research effort. There have been several studies into the issue of increasing availability of porn increasing the demand for porn. See for example:



http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/10/unsexy-porn.html and particularly Daum's quote "it's human nature to become inured to repeated images of anything, but pornography throws a kink in that assumption because demand for the product seems to increase even as genuine enthusiasm wanes."



http://womensphere.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/high-demand-triggers-rise-in-sex-trafficking-cases-in-micronesia/ - this article discusses the effect that the increased demand for prostitutes in North America, particularly Las Vegas, has on trafficking. It also discusses the dangers of how legalisation of prostitution may fuel an increased demand for it and a corresponding increase in HIV



www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---.../wcms_bk_pb_6_en.pdf - similar point



prostitution.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=243 - "legalising prostitution creates more demand and mainstream abuse of women and children". This is not an article but raises some interesting viewpoints.



rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/horr27c.pdf - Report 27 repeats the view that legalization may increase the demand for prostitution.



Roger Matthews: Prostitution, Politics and Policy (2008) - is certainly in favour of NOT increasing the demand for prostitution.



Janice G. Raymond. "10 reasons for not legalizing prostitution". Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International (CATW). March 25, 2003



Nicholas Kulish. "Bulgaria moves away from legalizing prostitution". International Herald Tribune. October 5, 2007

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Really? Very boring thread. No further discussion allowed. Only theoretical, ideological arguements, which, if people's morals do not not accord with yours, are not worthy of further discussion. My view is that I consider it sleazy, undeseriable, but not "wrong" per se. Its a moot point, it exists, so it has to be dealt with. What does it matter whether people consider it wrong or not, unless you are uncomfortable with people holding moral views which differ to your own? Perhaps you would also like to define what you mean by "wrong" in this context, since it is seems to be the only permitted part of your arguement?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

I don't see what you mean at all because your arguement is so negative, weak and theoretical and you have provided no evidence, nor discussed any. My examples above are so easily obtainable in the public domain that I thought you would have been aware of them in order to form your own counter view. I know perfectly well that there are counter arguements and research on this and two schools of thought, which is more than you appear to be aware of, since you make no attempt to discuss any more substantial issues than the purely ideological. I am not even saying that my way is the only right way, just that other viewpoints are valid and will certainly have to be taken into account if you are ever going to progress your arguement belong the purely theoretical.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

You over-simplify. My arguement is not that reulating is a bad thing, but that regulating in certain ways is a bad thing. None of the proponents of changed regulation (because it is many ways already regulated to some extent) have made any attempt to suggest suitable methods of regulation, although tolerance zones have been criticised. It is a purely negative, and rather strange arguement. In fact, since the proponents seem to be argueing on the basis that prostitution is a good thing (and such a good thing that no other viewpoint is valid), they give the impression that increasing it is also a good thing.



It is difficult to determine what the proponents on this thread actually stand for. All we hear is what they don't stand for. As soon as you try to pin them down to one thing, they squeal that we should not put words in their mouths. Are you argueing for legalisation or for decriminalisation? On what basis does your arguement proceed?



And if it is not reasonably obvious from your arguement what it is that you are argueing for, how can you accuse other poster's arguemnts of being baseless and unsbustantiated? Your discussion seems now to be more an attempt to tell other posters how they should argue, because it fits in better with your own particular ideological approach.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.







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.







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.







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.







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.

At last a little bit of basic critical analysis appears, but still only of the points you favour and are therefore comfortable with. But then another piece of control-advice at the end. Why? What gives you the authority to say things should be done the way you think they should be done? Is this not a tad arrogant?



For one who constantly states that you only need to argue against points which disagree with your own, how can you criticise an arguement based on "what you can not show will not happen"? Ironically, your arguement in the final paragraph merely supports the consideration of subjective and not so subjective arguements based on studies and articles which are readily available. All studies - not just those which coincide with the point I am argueing. And in practice it would have no application because in promulgating new legislation, the Legislature would have to have regard to the issues you negate.



If I could summarise what I am saying to you it would be thus: its rather dubious to criticise those for disagreeing with you because of the style rather than the substance of their arguement, when yours contains neither.

T runner

Distorted wrote: »

Not entirely - I have presented numerous links. It is your arguements which have been notable for being baseless and unsubstantiated. Whether they are based on personal bias, I cannot comment.

I have to concur. I have also tried to link and substantiate my arguments to this poster who continuously accuses me of not doing so while providing no links or substantiation himself.

T runner

drkpower wrote: »

While selling sex to multiple partners for money can have some health implications,

You can see by the HSE reports on results of check-ups on Prostitutes, that if you are a prostitute in this country your physical health will be affected.

so can having sex with multiple partners without money being involved, and the State hasnt seen fit to criminalise such behaviour, even where the behaviour is grossly irresponsible.

It is very, very rarely where someone who has a lot of sexual partners would even approach the levels of partners that a prostitute would have.

Adding money to the transaction doesnt increase the health risks associated with the act itself.

It does. It means that you dont know the sexual history of your partner, it is not love making so the client may be violent in intercourse causing injury, your client may actually strike you, your "protectors" may strike you if the client complains, the prostitute has no choice but to proceed with the act even if she is not "ready".

So, criminalising 'selling sex' is not about the protection fo health; it is about the protection of 'morals', something the State should not be concerning itself with. As someone once said on this thread...... (i wonder who it was....;):D)

[/I][/QUOTE]

No it isnt. If you criminalise the clients actions the demand falls. Rehabilitating women at the same time will result in the overall reduction of the misery this industry inflicts on vulnerable women.

Legalising Prostitution seems to have excacerbated the problem in The Netherlands. Criminalising clients as in Sweden has resulted in marked reductions in levels of prostitutions. Less demand.

Prostitutes themselves should not be a focus for the Law, only Sex bosses and clients.

drkpower

T runner wrote: »

You can see by the HSE reports on results of check-ups on Prostitutes, that if you are a prostitute in this country your physical health will be affected..

And if you sleep with multiple partners, with no money chganging hands, your health will also be affected; but noone has criminalised such actions

T runner wrote: »

It is very, very rarely where someone who has a lot of sexual partners would even approach the levels of partners that a prostitute would have...

Even if that is true, in this rare case you cite, is the person with these sexual partners crimalised? No. Do you think they sshould be?

T runner wrote: »

It does. It means that you dont know the sexual history of your partner, it is not love making so the client may be violent in intercourse causing injury..........

....and these are all risks that an irresponsible person, who has sex with multiple random partners, runs, but s/he is not criminalised. Why is that? Should s/he be?

drkpower

Distorted wrote: »

What gives you the authority to say things should be done the way you think they should be done? Is this not a tad arrogant?

Another moment of lucidity; well done!

Try and apply it to the current debate, and then come back to us.

Distorted

T runner wrote: »

Legalising Prostitution seems to have excacerbated the problem in The Netherlands. Criminalising clients as in Sweden has resulted in marked reductions in levels of prostitutions. Less demand.

Here is a link to an article on this very subject:

www.museumstuff.com/.../Prostitution_in_Sweden::sub::Aftermath_Of_ Kvinnofrid_Law -

28064212

T runner wrote: »

Legalising Prostitution seems to have excacerbated the problem in The Netherlands. Criminalising clients as in Sweden has resulted in marked reductions in levels of prostitutions. Less demand.

That makes the mistake of assuming that prostitution is wrong or bad or inherently illegal. If homosexual intercourse was criminalised in the morning, there would be marked reductions of that too. It could even have some positive effects (lower STD rates as a result of fewer one-night-stands, more likely to only be risked in committed relationships). It doesn't make it right.

I haven't seen a response from the prohibition side to this scenario yet (that doesn't rely on the argument that it's "morally" wrong): 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 objections to whether clients see her as a sex object or not. Should what she wants to do be illegal? Why?

T runner

T runner wrote: »

It does. It means that you dont know the sexual history of your partner, it is not love making so the client may be violent in intercourse causing injury, your client may actually strike you,

Which, lets be honest that describes just about every relationship and their first sexual experience together. Do you really establish a thorough sexual history of your partners before sleeping with them? Somehow I doubt it. If you date someone for two weeks, and then have sex with them, is that "love making"? Or intimate sex? And despite any "conversations" people have prior to sex, you only really learn what people are "into" through experience with them.

As for the whole hitting thing, I was slapped in the face, and scratched all along the back by a girl i was having sex with. We had been dating just over a month. Does that mean we should make sex before a certain period illegal, because someone "may" get slapped/struck?

your "protectors" may strike you if the client complains, the prostitute has no choice but to proceed with the act even if she is not "ready".

Even if she is not ready? What does that mean?

And if you had ever been to a prostitute you'd understand that we (the customer) go for pleasure, and there's no chance of getting that pleasure if the prostitute has no interest in providing it (obviously in return for money). Might as well get a blow up doll for all the sensation involved. Whereas if you have an escort that makes some effort and knows what they're doing, you're likely to tip them in addition to the original charge, and come back again.

The only people that go around hitting prostitutes are the one's with the original intention to hurt people. There is a special scene for them, and particular prostitutes which advertise for it. Just as those escorts who are not into that scene, will make it clear from the beginning.

Frankly, you seem incapable of understanding that there are different layers of escort types, and customer types. I guess its easier to label all prostitutes as essentially street-walkers, who are vulnerable and incapable of choosing for themselves, and all customers are nasty men who strike women.

nozzferrahhtoo

T runner wrote: »

No, its all there.

I am afraid it is not. The sentence, for example, "Are you suggesting that a prostitute who has sex only once every 3 days." is incomplete and meaningless.

Am I suggesting that a prostitute who has sex only once every 3 days.... what?

I can not reply to your posts if the sentences are grammatically meaningless.

All I am asking is that you substantiate the claims that they have "dozens" of clients "every day". Is that such a hard question to answer? Was the figure pulled out of thin air or what? Can you answer this or are you going to keep asking me to back up claims I am not actually making to avoid having to answer it?

nozzferrahhtoo

Your posts have become unusually spread out, long and personal, containing mostly personal digs at me. There is nothing to be gained by engaging with ad hominem and the like, so Instead I will focus on two important points at a time and return to the others when I feel these have been dealt with.

The two most important in my opinion are the claims you have presented evidence when you have not, and the claims that knocking down arguments can not be done without establishing other arguments in their place. I choose these because everything else I am saying is based on these two things and unless they are resolved anything else I say will be me talking past you rather than with you.

Distorted wrote: »

Not entirely - I have presented numerous links.

False, you have done no such thing. I just went back through all the pages of this thread before this post and looked at every single one of your posts and I do not find “numerous” links at all. I find One post drkpower with a link to wikipedia which is hardly an information source proving anything… and one post to me containing 4 links, 2 of which were the same so it really was only 3 links, and 2 of those were not even links to studies but to opinion pieces in news papers that also make claims they do not substantiate.

It is worth learning that you can not substantiate a claim merely by referencing someone else who also makes the same claims but also makes them unsubstantiated. We can all claim things without evidence and merely find other people who claim the same things without evidence. This does not mean you substantiated anything. Ever.

Distorted wrote: »

Its a weak arguement and incredibly lazy if all you can do is knock down other arguements without providing any credible evidence to back up your points or any alternatives.

Thankfully this is not only untrue, but generally people do not subscribe to your way of thinking as the world would be a very different place.

In fact spotting bad arguments and establishing why they are bad is the opposite of lazy. It is in fact very time consuming. It is also not weak, as it adds much to the wealth of human understanding.

The entire process of science for example relies on peer review, which is the very time consuming process of other scientists pulling apart the arguments of their peers to find out where they fail. At no point in this process are the scientists engaged in the process required to postulate alternatives or make points of their own. It is more than enough that they put the time in to analyse the arguments of others and, where possible, pull them down.

Similarly the world is full of people making “studies”. The world of statistics is over run with people putting spin on numbers. It is far from lazy, and is in fact a very time consuming and skilled process, to be able to pick up a statistical study and analyse the methodology employed in it and pull it apart if the study is bad. The people who do this do not have to replace it with a study of their own, nor do they have to have a point to make, in order to point out errors in methodology or where figures fail to lead to the conclusions based on them.

So I am afraid merely declaring by fiat that it is “weak” or “lazy” is nothing more than your opinion and an opinion that is as baseless as it is false, and thankfully so because the process is in fact very important to us. You have been wrong before, but in this case we can actually be very thankful that you are wrong and that the real world does not actually operate like you painted it here.

The Corinthian

I've lived in countries where prostitution is illegal and in countries where it is legal. Legalization does appear to bring it out of the purely criminal black market, however because of the social stigma against it, it still remains in the 'gray' market - nominally legal, but still sleazy and with a lot of illegality at the peripheries.

Prostitutes are better protected when it is legal though; medical checks are required on a regular basis and are carried out above board. If there is trouble the local police can actually be called openly. They are able to contribute both to their pension and unemployment insurance. If abused by an employer they can press charges or even sue for damages.

It is also a bit ridiculous to say that women are always forced into prostitution in such an environment - some may be, but what of the one's who are not? What would they do without that avenue for earning? Apparently they do it illegally anyway - and if not what then? Get an office job? Should we shut down every industry that has incidences of abuse or exploitation? Or every industry that comes with health risks?

I do think that prostitutes have better conditions and rights in such countries, however I am in two minds as to whether it is overall socially acceptable. If the stigma attached and the 'gray' factor could be tackled, I'd probably agree with it more, but I have my doubts that it can be. As such, I'm not sold on the idea.

I would note however, reading this thread, that support and opposition to prostitution is largely (but not always) based on gender lines. More men seem to support it and more women oppose it. This seems logical as men are by far the greatest percentage of clients, with few women availing and if anything it represents a threat to the fidelity of the men they're with.

Call me a cynic, but there you go.

nozzferrahhtoo

Distorted wrote: »

See for example:

Let us look at the links you have provided to see if they really do support the notion that:

a) Legalising prostitution will increase the demand for prostitution
b) That this is a bad thing.

Apologies for the delay, but I genuinely took the time to read all your links and consider them hence the 1 day delay in my reply.

I will number my responses in the order that you presented the links to make it more readable. If you wish to see which response applies to which link then merely go back to your own post and count them.

1) This is not a study. It is an opinion piece pulled from a blog. It says nothing about prostitution at all (Your claim is about prostitution not porn) and the claims made by the author are, like yours, unsubstantiated with any links, data or evidence. I told you in my previous post that you can not substantiate claims merely by finding someone else who makes the same unsubstantiated claims. So this link fails because it has nothing to do with prostitution and it contains no data, evidence, argument or reasons. Just an opinion.
2) Again this is just a blog piece expressing the opinions you agree with. Again you can not substantiate an opinion merely by finding a blogger who agrees with it. However the piece merely says that demand for prostitution causes an increase. That is obvious and is not the claim I am disagreeing with. The claim you are making, and not substantiating, is that legalisation or regulation increases demand NOT that demand increases the quantity of product.
3) This link is broken. There is nothing there.
4) You gave this link and quoted from it the line starting with “egalising prostitution creates more demand…” which was the opinion of one person. Again what is the substantiation? AGAIN do I have to point out that finding someone who shares your opinion is not the same as providing evidence for that opinion???? Is this really a difficult concept that I have to keep repeating?
5) Finally, a link that is to actual research!!! Well done. 1 Out of 5 aint bad. Let us now look at this link as I spent most of my time yesterday on this link compared to your others. I will look at this report below the divide.

Summary: So of the 5 actual links you provided one does not even mention prostition (1), one is not even a proper link (3), two contain merely opinions of people who are as unsubstantiated as you are (2 and 4) and one supports my position not yours (5).

Lovely.

======================================
Let us now look more at the only link you provided that is a study of any sort. It is not just a study, but a meta analysis of other studies which is a good thing! However most of what this report tells us does not support your claims in any way.

First it highlights the methodological issues with even attempting to research the topic. It talks of gaps in the research and that the evidence that does exist is “weak” and “inconclusive” with regards to demand and that demand is linked to “moral, political and other influences”. So it does not in any way support your claims that demand is linked to legalisation. It says it is almost impossible to find out what demand IS linked to and that the links are likely to be numerous.

Of the motivations the report lists for procuring sex in this fashion, the fact that it is legal or regulated is not even mentioned and that the effects of “policy change” are “hidden or practically unmeasurable”. It does mention however that criminalisation leads to a decline in working conditions which was a concern I already highlighted numerous times so I am glad you provided a link to a study that supports my views.

Specifically in Sweden where they criminalised demand showed that the only result was a reduction in street prostitution but a corresponding increase in indoor types. So demand was essentially unaffected, the source just moved. This was coupled, as mentioned, with a reduction in the work environment of the sex workers themselves.

The report concludes that all efforts to reduce demand have mixed effects that are difficult to measure and that increased policing of street prostitution leads to a shift to the indoor market and that Displacement threatens to negate the gains of enforcement activity by making prostitution even more hidden and secretive.

So as I said, all great stuff, but most of it is supporting what I have been saying, not what you have been claiming about the links between demand and legalisation.

seenitall

The Corinthian wrote: »

I would note however, reading this thread, that support and opposition to prostitution is largely (but not always) based on gender lines. More men seem to support it and more women oppose it. This seems logical as men are by far the greatest percentage of clients, with few women availing and if anything it represents a threat to the fidelity of the men they're with.

Call me a cynic, but there you go.

Logical? Pure conjecture, you mean (because women's motives for not recognising the values of prostitution will regularly be stripped down to plain old jealousy underneath it all - yeah, that's us wimminz, just needing to stop our men from cheating and the world's all grand again, and participating in on-line discussions like this couldn't possibly be about wanting to express any feelings of concern and altruism about others/ sarcasm).

I am a woman and have so far been insufficiently informed about prostitution to form an opinion on it either way. Reading this thread, I am impressed by the strong argument that the pro-legalisation side has built up, in face of which the anti side seems to be struggling (imv). However, your comment really gets my back up - if you have read all the posts by those on the anti side surely it can't have escaped your notice that all of these posters are approaching the issue with concern about women's health and practices, not with some moralistic "burn those whores" attitude.

You have a right to your opinion, of course, I just thought it was worth pointing out that your opinion is based on nothing more than ... well, whatever goes on in your own head (which seems to be determined to find hidden, ugly motives in people's concern, of all things), and certainly not on any views displayed on this thread.

As for the men/women divide on the topic, I seem to remember reading somewhere that women are generally the more immediately empathetic gender - how's that for an explanation? I am fairly sure you won't like it, though.

The Corinthian

seenitall wrote: »

Logical? Pure conjecture, you mean (because women's motives for not recognising the values of prostitution will regularly be stripped down to plain old jealousy underneath it all - yeah, that's us wimminz, just needing to stop our men from cheating and the world's all grand again, and participating in on-line discussions like this couldn't possibly be about wanting to express any feelings of concern and altruism about others/ sarcasm).

Actually I was equally cynical about both. Men, being more likely to avail of prostitution are more likely to support it. Women, being less likely to avail of prostitution are more likely to oppose it. The whole threat of infidelity angle was just an extra, I could probably add a similar self-interest argument for why men are more likely to support it.

You used to see the same type of dynamics in the abortion debate, pre-1990. It's just one of those things; people tend to more likely take the moral 'high road' when it does not affect them.

if you have read all the posts by those on the anti side surely it can't have escaped your notice that all of these posters are approaching the issue with concern about women's health and practices, not with some moralistic "burn those whores" attitude.

Both sides have been falling over each other with concern about the women in prostitution. Naturally they would - how morally justified would a "burn those whores" be? Or convincing for that matter?

You have a right to your opinion, of course, I just thought it was worth pointing out that your opinion is based on nothing more than ... well, whatever goes on in your own head (which seems to be determined to find hidden, ugly motives in people's concern, of all things), and certainly not on any views displayed on this thread.

I totally accept that it was simply an opinion (and observation) and made no attempt to hide this. And I also accepted it was cynical; which may be unfair, but as Giulio Andreotti once said "A pensar male si fa peccato, ma spesso ci si azzecca" ("It's a sin to think bad of others; but often, you nail it right").

As for the men/women divide on the topic, I seem to remember reading somewhere that women are generally the more immediately empathetic gender - how's that for an explanation? I am fairly sure you won't like it, though.

It's not that I don't like it, it's that I don't really believe it. Are you not basing your opinion "on nothing more than ... well, whatever goes on in your own head" too?

I'm sorry if my observation upset you. And that it was the only thing you managed to take from my post.

seenitall

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's not that I don't like it, it's that I don't really believe it. Are you not basing your opinion "on nothing more than ... well, whatever goes on in your own head" too?

No, that's a well-worn gender based cliche, I would have thought?

I'm sorry if my observation upset you. And that it was the only thing you managed to take from my post.

It didn't upset me, it merely unpleasantly surprised me as your posts are usually very well argumented. And it wasn't the only thing I took from your post, just the one I felt compelled to comment on.

And... eh... "Due cose belle ha il mondo: amore e morte" G. Leopardi

Sorry, that's all the Italian literature I have (god knows where I picked it up!)

Distorted

seenitall wrote: »

I am a woman and have so far been insufficiently informed about prostitution to form an opinion on it either way. Reading this thread, I am impressed by the strong argument that the pro-legalisation side has built up, in face of which the anti side seems to be struggling (imv). However, your comment really gets my back up - if you have read all the posts by those on the anti side surely it can't have escaped your notice that all of these posters are approaching the issue with concern about women's health and practices, not with some moralistic "burn those whores" attitude.

My guess would be that the "antis" are under-represented because they are happy with the status quo and have no particular reason to go onto a thread to vent their frustration with the situation. Generally its always easier to build up an arguement to change something, because change must be improvement and improvement is good. But actually I don't believe in change for change's sake at all.

I sometimes think that when people are very close to an arguement in some kind of personal sense, it makes it harder for them to see it from an objective angle. I also think the issue is not as clear cut as some of the pro-legalisation side would have us think. You have to be careful not to encourage prostitution by legitimising it too much, because at a certain stage there will come a point between concern and exploitation of the vulnerable, in the name of ideology.

To be perfectly honest, who really cares whether a prostitute can make more money than someone working in a Spar? And does anyone know any wealthy prostitutes, other than by urban myth? I personally doubt there are a stream of clients at E250 an hour. More likely one every few days, or rather more at E50 an hour. Or maybe E80. Whatever the going rate is. The prostitute I (think) I know still claims benefits. She has a reasonable standard of living but not as good as for example a schoolteacher or similar. And I admit this is hardly representative, but she appears to "work" 2 nights a week, and in a different city from which she lives.

But what concerns me is this notion mentioned earlier on this thread about encouraging prostitutes to view it as a genuine career. That for me is where the line between helping prostitutes and caring for their health, etc is crossed and becomes too close to exploitation of the vulnerable for the benefit of the would-be client. Where "care" becomes "control".

The vulnerable can be a very attractive target to some people, many of whom mean and do well, but others of whom can exploit the situation created for their own benefit.

Its an unpleasant way of life. I don't think anything should be done to encourage greater numbers into it. A bit like sending children down mines, or even adults down mines in poor conditions - most people I know don't consider mining a great job and would rather be doing something else.

As a related thought to some of the posts today, does anyone know what the position is in Italy? This was my boyfriend's comment on his work trip to Rome today: "First time in Rome and I've discovered that bus lanes are purely for undertaking manoevures and the hard shoulder is not to be used for emergencies but for picking up prostitutes!"

Distorted

There might be a gender divide on this issue, although in practice it is probably a non-sequiter, since in a democracy roughly equal members of both sexes will have to vote the politicians into power who may wish to change the status quo by legislation.

Perhaps the divide is better described as "statistical" - those who avail of the service or who work within in it are more likely to be in favour of it. I know plenty of men who are disgusted by the thought of using a prostitute, just as many women would be repulsed by the thought of having a boyfriend who had ever used a prostitute. Some people will be more adventurous than others sexually. Some men who use prostitutes might for example feel disgusted by men who have had homosexual experiences, while seeing nothing wrong with the use of prostitutes.

Where does personal preference end and stimga begin?

One of my male friends told me a story about when 3 of them were walking back from the cinema through the tolerance zone and a prostitute approached them. Two of them were horrified and went away as quickly as possible but the other went with her. My male friend has repeated this story to me 3 or 4 times and he seems genuinely horrified by it, and the guy that went with the prostitute after this is no longer part of the friendship group as they seem to despise him. I am sure a lot of men feel like this and its not just women.

By the way, I don't mean to tar all users of prostitutes with the same brush. Just that this particular type of service is a bit risky, undignified and indeed pathetic. I simply don't think "normalising" prostitution so much that it becomes commonplace and proliferates is a good idea.

28064212

Distorted wrote: »

But what concerns me is this notion mentioned earlier on this thread about encouraging prostitutes to view it as a genuine career.

I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested encouraging women to view prostitution as a genuine career. No more than they would encourage anyone to see secretarial work as a career, or labouring, or waiting tables. The point is that if someone does see it as a genuine career, I don't see any reason they should be stopped.

Can you give your opinion on the following situation (not being confrontational, I'm just genuinely curious to see what someone from the prohibition side makes of it, and no-one has provided one yet):

28064212 wrote: »

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 objections to whether clients see her as a sex object or not. Should what she wants to do be illegal? Why?

Distorted

28064212 wrote: »

I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested encouraging women to view prostitution as a genuine career. No more than they would encourage anyone to see secretarial work as a career, or labouring, or waiting tables. The point is that if someone does see it as a genuine career, I don't see any reason they should be stopped.

Can you give your opinion on the following situation (not being confrontational, I'm just genuinely curious to see what someone from the prohibition side makes of it, and no-one has provided one yet):

Its not my position to stop someone who makes that choice. I would only be for stopping them when that choice interfered with the majority who do not choose to get involved in prostitution. e.g. if I had to walk through an area to get to my home or to the cinema and got hassled by kerb crawlers when I was doing so, or if I could hear them doing their business in my garden. Or if my local phone box (bit old fashioned now) were full of cards advertising sexual services. I don't want someone else's life choices to affect mine and as I am in the majority, I wish them to practice it in a way that doesn't.

(Where do you draw the line if you don't? Generally people keep the act of having sex for private i.e. it is hidden. Why is it so bad that prostitution is also hidden, since it involves the act of sex?)

However I might criticise them, for example, in a discussion about career choices or acceptable behaviour. I certainly wouldn't admire that person. There are plenty of women who face this choice and work extremely hard in menial jobs for poor salaries, but who make a valid contribution to society. I think the danger in legitimising prostitutes too much is that a disproportionate attention is given to them at the expense of the average person.

I don't believe that anyone HAS to become a prostitute (unless they are trafficked) in that situation. There are other ways, and plenty of people choose them. Mamon is not all.

ps I'm not for prohibition, though I can see that someone may call it that. I'm more for preserving the status quo, whatever you may choose to describe that as, but improving availability of health checks and perhaps some other measures. But I would not go so far as granting employment rights and de-criminalising every aspect of it, as I have too many concerns over what it would do to some very vulnerable people.

I don't think getting involved in ideological, theoretical discussions of whether these notions are too subjective or not is wise. It is people's lives we are talking about and if the status quo is to be changed, it should only be done so for very good reasons, after fully considering all the risks, whether subjective or not, and weighing up all the disadvantages and advantages. As I've said before, I think the risk with prostitution is the link between complete legitimisation - encouragement - exploitation.

28064212

Distorted wrote: »

Its not my position to stop someone who makes that choice. I would only be for stopping them when that choice interfered with the majority who do not choose to get involved in prostitution. e.g. if I had to walk through an area to get to my home or to the cinema and got hassled by kerb crawlers when I was doing so, or if I could hear them doing their business in my garden. Or if my local phone box (bit old fashioned now) were full of cards advertising sexual services.

As far as I can see, no-one here has called for kerb-crawling to be legal. Certainly, no-one has called for prostitutes to be allowed conduct their business in your garden (or anywhere in public)

Distorted wrote: »

I don't want someone else's life choices to affect mine

Isn't that massively hypocritical?

Distorted wrote: »

(Where do you draw the line if you don't? Generally people keep the act of having sex for private i.e. it is hidden. Why is it so bad that prostitution is also hidden, since it involves the act of sex?)

No-one has called for forcing sex-shows on the public or anything close to that.

Distorted wrote: »

However I might criticise them, for example, in a discussion about career choices or acceptable behaviour. I certainly wouldn't admire that person. There are plenty of women who face this choice and work extremely hard in menial jobs for poor salaries, but who make a valid contribution to society.

Great, no problems there. That's entirely up to you. Personally, I'd have less criticism for a prostitute than I would have for a reality TV show participant, but that's just my opinion. It certainly has no place in a discussion on legalisation and regulation.

Distorted wrote: »

I think the danger in legitimising prostitutes too much is that a disproportionate attention is given to them at the expense of the average person.

I don't understand this point, can you clarify?

Distorted wrote: »

I don't believe that anyone HAS to become a prostitute (unless they are trafficked) in that situation. There are other ways, and plenty of people choose them. Mamon is not all.

Yes, but it's your personal opinion that the other ways are somehow "better". There are many, many jobs which don't "make a valid contribution to society", that's not a reason to make them illegal

Distorted wrote: »

ps I'm not for prohibition, though I can see that someone may call it that. I'm more for preserving the status quo, whatever you may choose to describe that as, but improving availability of health checks and perhaps some other measures. But I would not go so far as granting employment rights and de-criminalising every aspect of it, as I have too many concerns over what it would do to some very vulnerable people.

What do you think is involved in granting employment rights? What's bad about giving them the right to not be harrassed, or not to be underpaid, or being able to sue a client for non-payment? And again, no-one has called for de-criminalising every aspect of it

Distorted wrote: »

I don't think getting involved in ideological, theoretical discussions of whether these notions are too subjective or not is wise. It is people's lives we are talking about and if the status quo is to be changed, it should only be done so for very good reasons, after fully considering all the risks, whether subjective or not, and weighing up all the disadvantages and advantages.

In a civilised society, you don't need a reason to make something legal, you need a reason for it to be illegal. The default position is a lawless society, not the status quo. Laws are used to protect people, not restrict them. Trafficking, rape, abuse, coercion all have reasons to be made illegal, they're infringing on someone else's rights. There is no reason for prostitution to be illegal that isn't based on (entirely subjective) 'morals'.

Distorted wrote: »

As I've said before, I think the risk with prostitution is the link between complete legitimisation - encouragement - exploitation.

Something being legal is not encouragement. You might as well say we're all encouraged to be binmen because that's not illegal. And there are many areas which have high levels of exploitation: the food services and construction sectors are two which leap to mind, huge numbers of immigrants were exploited over the last decade. That's not a reason to ban the legal parts of the sectors, it's a reason to regulate it and punish the people breaking those regulations

28064212

Here's an example system of what I'd like to see for legalisation and regulation of prostitution in Ireland (I know there will be many, many details to work out, but this is a starting point):

1. Licensing: Someone who wants to be a prostitute applies for a license, including a signed declaration that they are doing this of their own free will. Assuming they meet certain criteria (citizenship/residency etc), an ID card with a photo and id number (but no name) is issued. I'd imagine a 2-year validity period would be a rough guide. Clients would be legally responsible for checking ID cards
2. Prostitution is already 'legal', but made effectively illegal due to the fact that no advertisement is allowed. So advertising should be made legal. Obviously the internet would be a primary medium. Magazines can choose to carry prostitution advertising if they want. It should be treated the same way as any other business in the Golden Pages. ID numbers should be provided on-demand over the phone/internet and in-person
3. Self-employed prostitutes: roughly similar to taxi drivers. Once they have their ID card, they will have certain responsibilities: agreement of rates beforehand, provision of a clean environment (unless they provide a call-out service), no public sex, providing receipts with their ID number on it. The client will also have responsibilities: must see their ID card, confirm that it is them, agreement of rates etc
4. Brothels should be licensed. Payment (whether it's salary- or commission-based) and employer responsibilities should be no different to any other business. There would need to be regulations for advertising outside it, certainly nothing more explicit than is already legal for sex-shops etc.
5. Privacy laws: may be a grey area, but I would imagine neither party is at liberty to divulge any details, including whether a transaction took place
6. STD checks should be mandatory. Licences are invalidated without one, say, every three months. Maybe provide a website where clients can input ID numbers to check they are still valid
7. Condom use should be mandatory, except maybe in highly regulated circumstances, say, the client is required to provide a recent STD results test and sign a declaration that they have not had any form of unprotected intercourse since
8. Unlicensed prostitution will be made illegal, and of course all rape, abuse, coercion, blackmail, harrassment, violence and trafficking will remain illegal
9. I'd also like to see some kind of theory test requirement, similar to the driving theory test, checking STD knowledge, general sexual health knowledge, and what to do/where to go in various situations

Do any of the anti-prostitution side have objections to the principles of such a system? Why?

Mr. Loverman

28064212 wrote: »

Here's an example system of what I'd like to see for legalisation and regulation of prostitution in Ireland (I know there will be many, many details to work out, but this is a starting point):

1. Licensing: Someone who wants to be a prostitute applies for a license, including a signed declaration that they are doing this of their own free will. Assuming they meet certain criteria (citizenship/residency etc), an ID card with a photo and id number (but no name) is issued. I'd imagine a 2-year validity period would be a rough guide. Clients would be legally responsible for checking ID cards
2. Prostitution is already 'legal', but made effectively illegal due to the fact that no advertisement is allowed. So advertising should be made legal. Obviously the internet would be a primary medium. Magazines can choose to carry prostitution advertising if they want. It should be treated the same way as any other business in the Golden Pages. ID numbers should be provided on-demand over the phone/internet and in-person
3. Self-employed prostitutes: roughly similar to taxi drivers. Once they have their ID card, they will have certain responsibilities: agreement of rates beforehand, provision of a clean environment (unless they provide a call-out service), no public sex, providing receipts with their ID number on it. The client will also have responsibilities: must see their ID card, confirm that it is them, agreement of rates etc
4. Brothels should be licensed. Payment (whether it's salary- or commission-based) and employer responsibilities should be no different to any other business. There would need to be regulations for advertising outside it, certainly nothing more explicit than is already legal for sex-shops etc.
5. Privacy laws: may be a grey area, but I would imagine neither party is at liberty to divulge any details, including whether a transaction took place
6. STD checks should be mandatory. Licences are invalidated without one, say, every three months. Maybe provide a website where clients can input ID numbers to check they are still valid
7. Condom use should be mandatory, except maybe in highly regulated circumstances, say, the client is required to provide a recent STD results test and sign a declaration that they have not had any form of unprotected intercourse since
8. Unlicensed prostitution will be made illegal, and of course all rape, abuse, coercion, blackmail, harrassment, violence and trafficking will remain illegal
9. I'd also like to see some kind of theory test requirement, similar to the driving theory test, checking STD knowledge, general sexual health knowledge, and what to do/where to go in various situations

Do any of the anti-prostitution side have objections to the principles of such a system? Why?

Very sensible and progressive.

Mike 1972

28064212 wrote: »

providing receipts with their ID number on it.

Why would anyone using such services require a receipt ?

28064212

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Why would anyone using such services require a receipt ?

Because of point 1 - clients would be legally responsible for checking IDs, and the burden of proof would be on them in the event of an investigation

Mike 1972

How long would you envisage one being legally required to retain such a document.

People with spouses/partners/nosey family members might be reluctant.......

28064212

Mike 1972 wrote: »

How long would you envisage one being legally required to retain such a document.

Some kind of time limitation for complaints, say 6 months, could be workable. Or at least, there wouldn't be an assumed guilt after a certain amount of time. It needs work of course, but I would be in favour of a system which places a requirement on the client to ensure to the best of their abilities that it is a licensed prostitute

Mike 1972 wrote: »

People with spouses/partners/nosey family members might be reluctant.......

That's their problem, not the law's

Mike 1972

Mike 1972 wrote: »

How long would you envisage one being legally required to retain such a document.

People with spouses/partners/nosey family members might be reluctant.......

You can get receipts from strip-clubs/lap-dancing establishments showing your costs. I imagine there are some aspects regarding tax returns if you're doing business nights outs.

As for "People with spouses/partners/nosey family members" most legal sex industry credit card receipts show a different name to that of the more obvious sales/business name. Something more acceptable. I imagine the same could be applied to cash receipts, although tbh if prostitution became more acceptable you'd probably see more credit card/debit card transactions for the sake of convenience, and to cut down on the risks to the escorts themselves.

Distorted

28064212 wrote: »

Here's an example system of what I'd like to see for legalisation and regulation of prostitution in Ireland (I know there will be many, many details to work out, but this is a starting point):

1. Licensing: Someone who wants to be a prostitute applies for a license, including a signed declaration that they are doing this of their own free will. Assuming they meet certain criteria (citizenship/residency etc), an ID card with a photo and id number (but no name) is issued. I'd imagine a 2-year validity period would be a rough guide. Clients would be legally responsible for checking ID cards
2. Prostitution is already 'legal', but made effectively illegal due to the fact that no advertisement is allowed. So advertising should be made legal. Obviously the internet would be a primary medium. Magazines can choose to carry prostitution advertising if they want. It should be treated the same way as any other business in the Golden Pages. ID numbers should be provided on-demand over the phone/internet and in-person
3. Self-employed prostitutes: roughly similar to taxi drivers. Once they have their ID card, they will have certain responsibilities: agreement of rates beforehand, provision of a clean environment (unless they provide a call-out service), no public sex, providing receipts with their ID number on it. The client will also have responsibilities: must see their ID card, confirm that it is them, agreement of rates etc
4. Brothels should be licensed. Payment (whether it's salary- or commission-based) and employer responsibilities should be no different to any other business. There would need to be regulations for advertising outside it, certainly nothing more explicit than is already legal for sex-shops etc.
5. Privacy laws: may be a grey area, but I would imagine neither party is at liberty to divulge any details, including whether a transaction took place
6. STD checks should be mandatory. Licences are invalidated without one, say, every three months. Maybe provide a website where clients can input ID numbers to check they are still valid
7. Condom use should be mandatory, except maybe in highly regulated circumstances, say, the client is required to provide a recent STD results test and sign a declaration that they have not had any form of unprotected intercourse since
8. Unlicensed prostitution will be made illegal, and of course all rape, abuse, coercion, blackmail, harrassment, violence and trafficking will remain illegal
9. I'd also like to see some kind of theory test requirement, similar to the driving theory test, checking STD knowledge, general sexual health knowledge, and what to do/where to go in various situations

Do any of the anti-prostitution side have objections to the principles of such a system? Why?

My thoughts:

1. (i) Licesning is probably one of the better methods of regulating it. My only objection is that in the present recession, its a bit of a burden to place on the country. You would probably need to set up a new licensing authority, as I can't see current licensing officers being particularly happy or having the requisite expertise to carry out this new function.

(ii) There is also the issue of cost - how much would you charge prostitures for their license? Would it fund the cost of the licensing regime and if it did, would it not deter all but the elite from being able to afford it? Would you have a minimum activity level before it came into play? e.g. would the local pro who maybe only has one client every couple of months and is getting on a bit, require a license?

(iii) Would you criminalise those who don't have licenses but continue to practice, as this is common in most other licensed activities?

(2) Disagree with this. Advertising is actually very restricted. Solicitors in my country were only permitted to advertise a few years ago, and where and how they can do so is severely restricted. Many other examples of this. I find advertising of services which generally take place in private distasteful and sleazy. e.g. if someone were advertising their obvious willingness to participate in swinging or dogging in my local newspaper, or supermarket.

(3) Seems logical.

(4) Ditto. In some parts of the UK, brothels are licensed in all but name. They are called saunas.

(5) Don't think this is workable. Solicitors are compelled to breach client confidentiality by law in some areas, e.g. money laundering. In fact, they are compelled by law to see I.D. and record it before taking on a client for these reasons. Additionally for tax purposes, this information should be retrievable. If one of the arguements for legitimising prostitution is that it should not be an underground, hidden activity, this should apply to the clients as well as the practitioners.

(6) Seems logical.

(7) Not sure why the freedom of individuals to have paid for, condom-free sex if they wish should be regulated.

(8) Logical progression. May be very hard to enforce and some areas of prostitution will probably continue unregulated, while other areas would possibly market regulation as a selling point.

(9) A good idea. If the licensing system took off, it would be a good idea to introduce some training and continuing on-the-job education too. Perhaps with some tests that should be passed.

However I have to say that I am only commenting on your theories theoretically, my preference remains to retain the status quo, as I do not want to encourage prostitution to be seen as a career option by vulnerable young women (and men - has no-one on here heard of "rent boys"?)

28064212

Distorted wrote: »

1. (i) Licesning is probably one of the better methods of regulating it. My only objection is that in the present recession, its a bit of a burden to place on the country. You would probably need to set up a new licensing authority, as I can't see current licensing officers being particularly happy or having the requisite expertise to carry out this new function.

I would expect that the income that would be generated would more than cover the expense involved. Not in direct licence fees, which would be fairly minimal, but indirect income: how much income from prostitution is taxed at the moment? I would expect a small boost in tourism as well, and the fact that Gardaí resources could be redirected to more important areas (like trafficking)

Distorted wrote: »

(ii) There is also the issue of cost - how much would you charge prostitures for their license? Would it fund the cost of the licensing regime and if it did, would it not deter all but the elite from being able to afford it? Would you have a minimum activity level before it came into play? e.g. would the local pro who maybe only has one client every couple of months and is getting on a bit, require a license?

Similar to taxi drivers, the licence fee would be fairly minimal (around €100 or so), and every prostitute would be required to have one

Distorted wrote: »

(iii) Would you criminalise those who don't have licenses but continue to practice, as this is common in most other licensed activities?

Of course Isn't that the whole point?

Distorted wrote: »

(2) Disagree with this. Advertising is actually very restricted. Solicitors in my country were only permitted to advertise a few years ago, and where and how they can do so is severely restricted. Many other examples of this. I find advertising of services which generally take place in private distasteful and sleazy. e.g. if someone were advertising their obvious willingness to participate in swinging or dogging in my local newspaper, or supermarket.

You miss the point of the argument. If advertising is restricted for services, fine. If it's not, that's fine too. But prostitution shouldn't be treated any differently to other services. The rules should be the same for plumbers and prostitutes

Distorted wrote: »

(5) Don't think this is workable. Solicitors are compelled to breach client confidentiality by law in some areas, e.g. money laundering. In fact, they are compelled by law to see I.D. and record it before taking on a client for these reasons. Additionally for tax purposes, this information should be retrievable. If one of the arguements for legitimising prostitution is that it should not be an underground, hidden activity, this should apply to the clients as well as the practitioners.

I should have been clearer. Obviously there are circumstances where the right to privacy can be over-ruled. But without a good reason, both should have that right. A hotel can't just publish details of all it's guests and when they stayed there, which could have just as much repercussions, if, for example, a partner finds out their other half wasn't where they said they'd be.

Distorted wrote: »

(7) Not sure why the freedom of individuals to have paid for, condom-free sex if they wish should be regulated.

If they want to, they can, that's why I put in conditions to be fulfilled. If you want to drive a car, you can, you just have to be licensed, insured and taxed. That's the point of regulation

Distorted wrote: »

(8) Logical progression. May be very hard to enforce and some areas of prostitution will probably continue unregulated, while other areas would possibly market regulation as a selling point.

Harder to enforce than the current situation? I don't think so. Not to mention that Garda resources can be actually focused on the important areas

Distorted wrote: »

However I have to say that I am only commenting on your theories theoretically, my preference remains to retain the status quo, as I do not want to encourage prostitution to be seen as a career option by vulnerable young women

So again it comes back to your personal moral stance. I don't want reality TV to be encouraged as a career option, but I don't think it should made illegal.

And legalisation isn't the same as encouragement, anymore than people are 'encouraged' to be taxi-drivers because it's legal

Distorted wrote: »

(and men - has no-one on here heard of "rent boys"?)

I didn't make any reference to either gender

Distorted

Distorted wrote: »

However I have to say that I am only commenting on your theories theoretically, my preference remains to retain the status quo, as I do not want to encourage prostitution to be seen as a career option by vulnerable young women (and men - has no-one on here heard of "rent boys"?)

Generally in these threads the focus is entirely on female escorts and male customers, simply because the market for other areas are relatively small in comparison. But there is a market for "rent boys", lesbian escorts, etc etc etc.

I doubt that prostitution will ever be seen as a valid/acceptable career option in this country. We don't have the history, culture, or extreme poverty like many Asian countries which has such a situation. There is still an element of snobbery about the types of jobs that people go for. The people that end up going into prostitution will go for the same reasons they're doing so now. Making the industry safer is not going to remove the reluctance to either sell their bodies, or face the very strong negative perception of most common people to it, or that they're recognized and their reputations are tarnished..

Vulnerable young women (or men) will turn to prostitution as long as there are no other options. As I said earlier, we need to give them better options for income in consideration to their circumstances. But then I suppose that's a pipe dream considering the current state of the economy. Leaving things as they are isn't going to stop them entering the industry, and frankly increasing the legal ramifications for either customers or escorts isn't either.

28064212 wrote: »

You miss the point of the argument. If advertising is restricted for services, fine. If it's not, that's fine too. But prostitution shouldn't be treated any differently to other services. The rules should be the same for plumbers and prostitutes

TBH there's no need to change the current set up for advertising in this country for them. The internet already covers the majority of the trade, that's not already covered by word-of-mouth. There are also a number of publications which can and do cover this area. Personally there's no need to change things for advertising. Treat it the same way as Lap dancing clubs, sex shops, etc.

28064212

Deleted User wrote: »

I doubt that prostitution will ever be seen as a valid/acceptable career option in this country. We don't have the history, culture, or extreme poverty like many Asian countries which has such a situation. There is still an element of snobbery about the types of jobs that people go for. The people that end up going into prostitution will go for the same reasons they're doing so now. Making the industry safer is not going to remove the reluctance to either sell their bodies, or face the very strong negative perception of most common people to it, or that they're recognized and their reputations are tarnished..

Probably. So what? It's not the law's job to change opinions. There are many people who look down on cleaners and binmen, and many people who are reluctant to do those jobs. It's irrelevant

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH there's no need to change the current set up for advertising in this country for them.

That's exactly what I'm saying. There's no need to change advertising legislation. There's already plenty of laws covering advertisement of services/businesses, prostitution will be covered by them in the exact same way

chicken fingers

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Why would anyone using such services require a receipt ?

Claim back for tax :cool:

28064212

28064212 wrote: »

Probably. So what? It's not the law's job to change opinions. There are many people who look down on cleaners and binmen, and many people who are reluctant to do those jobs. It's irrelevant

Its relevant when its used as a crutch for an argument against bettering the current status quo.

28064212

Deleted User wrote: »

Its relevant when its used as a crutch for an argument against bettering the current status quo.

But the counter-argument is to point out that there are numerous jobs that are "looked down on", it's not a valid argument against legalisation

Distorted

28064212 wrote: »

I would expect that the income that would be generated would more than cover the expense involved. Not in direct licence fees, which would be fairly minimal, but indirect income: how much income from prostitution is taxed at the moment? I would expect a small boost in tourism as well, and the fact that Gardaí resources could be redirected to more important areas (like trafficking)

Similar to taxi drivers, the licence fee would be fairly minimal (around €100 or so), and every prostitute would be required to have one

That isn't the way licensing departments are funded. Direct licensing fees can be directed towards new licensing activities, but general taxation cannot. I doubt its a goer in the present economic climate. Certainly not on the arguement that it would probably generate more income from taxation and tourism.

Thats very low. In the field I operate in, licenses are generally £550 - £600 per year and they directly fund the licensing activity. I would have thought even in Ireland, the taxi industry pays far more than that.

28064212 wrote: »

You miss the point of the argument. If advertising is restricted for services, fine. If it's not, that's fine too. But prostitution shouldn't be treated any differently to other services. The rules should be the same for plumbers and prostitutes

I don't miss the point: I disagree with you. Thisi s different. Many services are treated in different ways from others. My profession for example is subject to very stringent advertising rules. As are for example, financial services. I see no evidence to suggest that prostitutes should be compared to plumbers. In addition, gas service engineers are subject to stringent rules which have a corresponding effect on how they advertise. This arguement is ridiculously simplistic.

28064212 wrote: »

I should have been clearer. Obviously there are circumstances where the right to privacy can be over-ruled. But without a good reason, both should have that right. A hotel can't just publish details of all it's guests and when they stayed there, which could have just as much repercussions, if, for example, a partner finds out their other half wasn't where they said they'd be.

Yes, but they keep records of them...

A further point is that the premises used by the prostitute should also be licensed, for safety purposes, such as fire escape routes, electrical safety, and suchlike.

28064212 wrote: »

If they want to, they can, that's why I put in conditions to be fulfilled. If you want to drive a car, you can, you just have to be licensed, insured and taxed. That's the point of regulation

Many activities in life are of course unlicensed.

28064212 wrote: »

Harder to enforce than the current situation? I don't think so. Not to mention that Garda resources can be actually focused on the important areas

Sounds like they will be much busier. Its unrealistic to assume that the majority of prostitutes would comply.

28064212 wrote: »

So again it comes back to your personal moral stance. I don't want reality TV to be encouraged as a career option, but I don't think it should made illegal.

Actually no. My moral stance is not against prostitution. I have a stance based on logic and common sense that makes me sceptical of the impractical and ideological, and of those who seek to manipulate the vulnerable.

The counter arguement, which you ironically fail to see, is that you wish to impose your own moral views upon others, simply because you see them as being superior. You appear to lack respect for the moral beliefs of others. You also appear to confuse a moral belief relating to the self (i.e. relating to what one would or would not do oneself) with that relating to the non-self (i.e. what one would seek to prevent others from doing).

Sex is one of the more controlled aspects of our society. A person may not, for example, have sex in a public place without breaching laws of public indecency. Sex is treated differently by the law, whether its convenient to you personally or not.

28064212 wrote: »

And legalisation isn't the same as encouragement, anymore than people are 'encouraged' to be taxi-drivers because it's legal

But simply because it does not fit conveniently into your arguement, does not mean that such a link does not exist. If the taxi industry were unregulated and a free for all, involving organised crime and trafficking of vulnerable individuals, then it would deter decent, ordinary people from entering it. Ditto prostitution. Provide a more normalised environment and you will encourage people to enter it. cf the Swedish example for the apropos arguement.

I find myself becoming increasingly suspicious of the motives of people who wish to "interfere" in the lives of prostitutes. The other way of seeing it is that it enables greater control by others of their lives and work.

What do the prostitutes have to say on this issue? Do they want to be regulated? Is there any great clamour for greater control of the industry amongst the practitioners?

nozzferrahhtoo

Distorted wrote: »

Where does personal preference end and stimga begin?

I simply don't think "normalising" prostitution so much that it becomes commonplace and proliferates is a good idea.

But again you have done nothing to show that that is likely to happen. You just declare this might happen without support. You pasted a few links but as I showed some of them were nothing to do with prostitution, one was a broken link to nothing and the other actually supported my view that very little would change. I can only guess that either you did not read your own link, or you had hoped I wouldn't take the time to do so.

However as has been pointed out, saying “Legalising X could make more of X” is irrelevant unless you first show X is a bad thing. Even if it did increase demand a little, you can not call this a bad thing just by fiat. The argument otherwise assumes the conclusion, which never helps.

Where does personal preference end and stigma begin? Who knows, but in my view it should be where the personal choices of people actually do impact on others. You will find that even the people who are all for regulating prostitution on here will agree with your concerns over in your face street prostitution. However you are attempting to indict the former as a whole with the latter. Regulating prostitution does not have to include street prostitution. Much prostitution in Ireland is done online at the moment with “escort” sites.

28064212

Distorted wrote: »

That isn't the way licensing departments are funded. Direct licensing fees can be directed towards new licensing activities, but general taxation cannot. I doubt its a goer in the present economic climate. Certainly not on the arguement that it would probably generate more income from taxation and tourism.

Of course it's a valid argument. Have you never seen press releases from departments announcing that such-and-such will bring in €x million to the exchequer and/or economy? There is no necessity for a licensing authority to make up all their funding directly

Distorted wrote: »

Thats very low. In the field I operate in, licenses are generally £550 - £600 per year and they directly fund the licensing activity. I would have thought even in Ireland, the taxi industry pays far more than that.

A taxi license is €250. Although they have more expenses since they have a vehicle to licence as well. Does that £550-£600 fund all the expenses of your licensing authority? There's no outside funding at all?

Distorted wrote: »

I don't miss the point: I disagree with you. Thisi s different. Many services are treated in different ways from others. My profession for example is subject to very stringent advertising rules. As are for example, financial services. I see no evidence to suggest that prostitutes should be compared to plumbers. In addition, gas service engineers are subject to stringent rules which have a corresponding effect on how they advertise. This arguement is ridiculously simplistic.

I don't see your position. Can you give me examples of the advertising rules you're talking about? I know you can't use 'registered' terms (e.g. doctor), you can't make false claims about services offered, pricing advertisements are subject to certain regulations (e.g. "20% off" must be actually 20% off, not 20% off a simultaneous price rise of 30% etc), but I fail to see how any of them are applicable.

Distorted wrote: »

Yes, but they keep records of them...

...and? The point was about reasonable expectation of privacy. What does record-keeping have to do with it?

Distorted wrote: »

A further point is that the premises used by the prostitute should also be licensed, for safety purposes, such as fire escape routes, electrical safety, and suchlike.

When it comes to brothels, yes, it's a business premise and is subject to the same Health and Safety regulations as any other business. I don't see why a self-employed prostitute who works out of her home or a hotel room would have to licence those premises, anymore than a masseuse would have to

Distorted wrote: »

Many activities in life are of course unlicensed.

And very few business transactions are unregulated

Distorted wrote: »

Sounds like they will be much busier. Its unrealistic to assume that the majority of prostitutes would comply.

Why? It will be in the best interests of both them and their clients

Distorted wrote: »

The counter arguement, which you ironically fail to see, is that you wish to impose your own moral views upon others, simply because you see them as being superior.

No I don't. I don't give a flying **** whether someone wants to be a prostitute. I don't care if someone wants to be a plumber, a waiter, a pilot or a lawyer. I have no opinion one way or the other.

However, I see no reason to restrict someone else's choices. Our positions can be quite easily boiled down to: you want to prevent people doing what you don't think they should be doing; I want to let people make their own minds up.

Distorted wrote: »

You appear to lack respect for the moral beliefs of others. You also appear to confuse a moral belief relating to the self (i.e. relating to what one would or would not do oneself) with that relating to the non-self (i.e. what one would seek to prevent others from doing).

Explain how any of that is not equally relevant to homosexuality. There are plenty of people who are morally opposed to homosexuality and believe it harms society. Should they be allowed dictate what other people do?

Distorted wrote: »

Sex is one of the more controlled aspects of our society. A person may not, for example, have sex in a public place without breaching laws of public indecency. Sex is treated differently by the law, whether its convenient to you personally or not.

Sex is one of the least controlled aspects of our society. Two (or more) consenting adults can do practically anything with each other. Public sex is a different situation because you are involving non-consenting people in it

Distorted wrote: »

But simply because it does not fit conveniently into your arguement, does not mean that such a link does not exist. If the taxi industry were unregulated and a free for all, involving organised crime and trafficking of vulnerable individuals, then it would deter decent, ordinary people from entering it. Ditto prostitution. Provide a more normalised environment and you will encourage people to enter it. cf the Swedish example for the apropos arguement.

Which is only relevant if you're capable of showing that prostitution is objectively bad, which you haven't. If the taxi industry was as you described, would you be for regulation of it or keeping the status quo?

Josh_Calvert

visiting an escort is cheaper than dating.Less emotional abuse and gameplaying too.Not that I have, but on some dates I'm sorely tempted to jack in the listening to endless blather and just go to some hungarian/polish/czech girl's apartment and have a nice hour.

wouldn't be keen to support trafficking or have sex with girls on dugs etc...herpes is also a worry.

can't see any moral objection to prostitution generally.all work is prostitution and exploitation.

plus some of these girls are hotter than any girls I could legitimately pull in 'real life' anyway so to that extent they provide a valuable service to normal guys....I'm quite surprised at some of the ones you see when you're looking for a taxi after a night out...pretty damned attractive for kerb crawlers.

not much difference in visiting an escort and a one night stand not to mention all the horrific stuff that goes on in fetish clubs and swingers parties...my favourite jogging location has been taken over by doggers so I run in the am now instead

curlzy

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The girls in Amsterdam are very well looked after. One buzz of the button and the man is flung out on his ass. The girls are well looked after with health checks and most are there out of choice. But according to those I know that have been there, you can spot the trafficked girls a mile off and as a result no one goes near them!

If a girl wants to be there then that is her choice and off with her!

Sorry, haven't read all of the thread but just wanted to point out that it's not all sunshine in Amsterdam for a prostitute, the union has regulated the amount they can charge to €50 for sex or oral, the room where they pose in the windows cost them €400 per night, meaning they have to sleep with 8 people they're not attracted to before they even begin to earn. The union actually made life harder for the vast majority.

I think it's fascinating the pattern that's emerging between the genders, the female (assuming from names) posters seem to see it as a horrific thing they would never want to do and the males (some not all) seeing it as a business arrangement. Well in as much as I read before I had to comment on the post above.

wolfpawnat

curlzy wrote: »

Sorry, haven't read all of the thread but just wanted to point out that it's not all sunshine in Amsterdam for a prostitute, the union has regulated the amount they can charge to €50 for sex or oral, the room where they pose in the windows cost them €400 per night, meaning they have to sleep with 8 people they're not attracted to before they even begin to earn. The union actually made life harder for the vast majority.

It is better than other countries. I am only going on what my ex said when he was there. He didn't go to one, but his friend was in with one and he got talking to a friend of hers who was taking a break! She was there of her own free will and she said that she liked her job and she was from somewhere else in Europe and chose Amsterdam for the way things are there.

And from the sounds of things they get more than the 8 men! Apparently my ex's friend went to the same girl for a few days and spent near €300 alone (and that was a few years ago so they were a bit cheaper!

JackieTokeman

Josh_Calvert wrote: »

visiting an escort is cheaper than dating.Less emotional abuse and gameplaying too.Not that I have, but on some dates I'm sorely tempted to jack in the listening to endless blather and just go to some hungarian/polish/czech girl's apartment and have a nice hour.

I don't know why ye guys have such a negative perception of women in this country.

Anecdotally speaking, every irish woman that I have gone out with, have been borderline anal about splitting the bill, or paying for all of the drinks/food themselves.

curlzy

curlzy wrote: »

Sorry, haven't read all of the thread but just wanted to point out that it's not all sunshine in Amsterdam for a prostitute, the union has regulated the amount they can charge to €50 for sex or oral, the room where they pose in the windows cost them €400 per night, meaning they have to sleep with 8 people they're not attracted to before they even begin to earn. The union actually made life harder for the vast majority.

The €50 Euro has been a staple of Amsterdams reputation for decades. But its a €50 for the basic service (1 pop as they say there). Everything else is still extra. So sex without partial clothes is extra, full nudity is extra again, kissing is extra, multiple positions is extra, etc etc etc.

The "union" may stipulate a €50 euro charge for a single cum but the escort can still charge pretty much what they like for extra's. And they decide on an individual basis what is considered extra.

I think it's fascinating the pattern that's emerging between the genders, the female (assuming from names) posters seem to see it as a horrific thing they would never want to do and the males (some not all) seeing it as a business arrangement. Well in as much as I read before I had to comment on the post above.

Pretty Traditional viewpoints tbh.

JackieTokeman wrote: »

I don't know why ye guys have such a negative perception of women in this country.

Perhaps because we have had such negative experiences with them both on a relationship level, and also on a sexual basis?

Anecdotally speaking, every irish woman that I have gone out with, have been borderline anal about splitting the bill, or paying for all of the drinks/food themselves.

Good for you, but its not about financial cost. Its about the emotional cost for the chance you won't be put through the wringer for sweet fck all. I seriously don't like the dating scene in this country. And so if i just want an evening of pure sex, I might go to an escort. Alternatively I could go to Copper Face Jacks, be treated with disdain, and perhaps score something of questionable quality.