Purchasing of sex will be criminalised (it appears) in the near future in Ireland

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It's comparable because a prostitute is paid to have sex and a medical test volunteer also is paid to to test medical products on with both effectively making their bodies available for money and are both doing so of their own free will.

They both get paid so they're not different, really?

Don't you understand anything about prostitution or are you wilfully ignoring the findings that I have posted?

Why don't you want to protect prostitutes?

You seem to think that prostitutes need to be protected from the alleged psychological damage they might suffer yet the volunteers for medical experiments are ok to carry on despite the physical and possibly mental risks.

The damage has been proven.

jam_mac_jam

rodento wrote: »

Does a massage therapist enjoy their job and or hair stylist, most people I know hate their jobs, so your point is

Exactly, you cant ban everything because somebody might not enjoy it

_Beau_

rodento wrote: »

Does a massage therapist enjoy their job and or hair stylist, most people I know hate their jobs, so your point is

Because some people don't enjoy their jobs, that's a valid reason to ignore the emotional and psychological damage that prostitution inflicts upon prostitutes?

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

Is it possible for individuals to view sex in individual ways? I would imagine so, yes.

What does that have to do with the debate?

Smoking will kill some smokers. Ban smoking. Driving will kill some some drivers. Ban driving. Teaching will cause depression and suicide in some teachers. Ban teaching. Coal mining kills miners. Ban mining.

How are we doing?

_Beau_

BlackRoom wrote: »

Exactly. And just as many massage therapists and hair stylists take pride in doing a good job, so too do many prostitutes.

Really? Prove it. I don't think that you can.

Wishful thinking, I would say.

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

Really? Prove it. I don't think that you can.

Wishful thinking, I would say.

If you keep asking everyone for proof while ignoring everyone else's requests that you provide proof for you points, I'm going to start reporting your posts for trolling and see what the mods think of your approach.

rodento

_Beau_ wrote: »

BlackRoom wrote: »

Exactly. And just as many massage therapists and hair stylists take pride in doing a good job, so too do many prostitutes.

Really? Prove it. I don't think that you can.

Wishful thinking, I would say.

I know people who are employed to delay paying others and loath there jobs, should we ban credit controllers...

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

Because it seems unfair to ban this industry and not other industries.

Such as?

Most women of course won't care - they wouldn't avail of the industry.

Is it acceptable to 'avail' of a woman's body who is being traumatised by that exchange?

They might start kicking up a fuss if people started banning industries they might be more inclined to get pleasure from. For example, let's ban, I don't know, the interior decoration/new kitchens industry - people get injured sometimes in doing work in the field. We don't really need. People should be able to get it (the work done) from their partners or they can always "do it themselves" (just as people can masturbate). Ban that in the morning and you might have complaints. Oh, and if you're caught paying anyone, you will get a criminal record; but the person offering the service won't.

Women like kitchens? If I wasn't typing on my laptop, I'd think that this was 1950. What a sexist view.

No, I'm not at all. I know lots of people do jobs they don't enjoy. And they wouldn't like their industry banned. Nor would the people who avail of it.

It's not simply a case of prostitutes not liking what they do, it's the psychological and emotional impact of their job that you don't seem to grasp. Perhaps you think that men having sex with them is okay, even when that act damages the prostitute.

That's disgusting.

Having sex with a child is wrong because it would damage them. The same applies to prostitutes. It's abuse.

SupaNova

Originally Posted by _Beau_
Prostitutes suffer from PTSD, self-loathing, suicidal thoughts, detachment from their bodies, a general lack of trust towards people (especially men) and an inability to form intimate relationships because of the psychological damage.

Replace prostitutes with binge drinkers, drug users, or soldiers. This statement can make sense for any group. And you should probably add the words not all at the start of this statement to be more accurate or even add a %.

Should all drinking, drug taking, military service be criminalized because some people suffer severely from these?

Monty Burnz

SupaNova wrote: »

Should all drinking, drug taking, military service be criminalized because some people suffer severely from these?

Don't forget paramedics, police, nurses and doctors, firemen - all of these professions need to be examined. Of course, providing the service would be ok, but paying for any of them would be a crime. :rolleyes:

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

Women like kitchens? If I wasn't typing on my laptop, I'd think that this was 1950. What a sexist view.

See, in real life, you may be able to get people to be quiet by saying they are sexist. Doesn't work as well on the internet. As I indicated in the lead-in, I was trying to give an example of things that women like more than men. It is my impression that it is women who tend to say "we need a new kitchen" or want to spend a lot of money on interior decoration. If one looks at people who do interior design courses, the vast majority are female. I don't believe it's sexist to believe that. Unless we are supposed to play a PC game and believe that men and women are exactly alike in every way.

Just shows the problem with discussions in the field. Feminists love to throw around the sexist word. It's a way to mean the issues aren't focused on.

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

All of them? Proof?

Look at the studies that I posted.

Perhaps then you might understand the extent of the damage that prostitutes suffer.

SupaNova

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Don't forget paramedics, police, nurses and doctors, firemen - all of these professions need to be examined. Of course, providing the service would be ok, but paying for any of them would be a crime. :rolleyes:

The statement could be extended to anyone, and fits perfectly with a how huge % of the population feel on a Sunday morning.

_Beau_

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Exactly, you cant ban everything because somebody might not enjoy it

No-one is suggesting criminalising clients simply because prostitutes don't enjoy servicing them.

Besides, are you suggesting that it's okay to sleep with someone who doesn't enjoy it?

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Smoking will kill some smokers. Ban smoking. Driving will kill some some drivers. Ban driving. Teaching will cause depression and suicide in some teachers. Ban teaching. Coal mining kills miners. Ban mining.

How are we doing?

Why are you against protecting prostitutes from the damage that their occupation inflicts upon them?

Dr Galen

_Beau_ wrote: »

Look at the studies that I posted.

Perhaps then you might understand the extent of the damage that prostitutes suffer.

Someone posted a link to the turnoffthebluelight site. You passed this off. The studies could also be passed off as being part of a religious or über feminist agenda just as equally.

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If you keep asking everyone for proof while ignoring everyone else's requests that you provide proof for you points, I'm going to start reporting your posts for trolling and see what the mods think of your approach.

This is my second time suggesting that you read the studies that I have cited.

I have provided proof for everything that I have said.

Again, you have provided no evidence to support any of your views.

If this continues, I have every right to report you.

_Beau_

rodento wrote: »

I know people who are employed to delay paying others and loath there jobs, should we ban credit controllers...

You're avoiding the question.

Do you have evidence to support the assertion that prostitutes enjoy servicing clients?

I have provided proof that they don't. The onus is upon you to refute that evidence.

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

Look at the studies that I posted.

I looked at the 'proof' you posted for your claim that 80% of prostitutes in the Netherlands were trafficked. It was a single paper written not by an independent researcher, but by an anti-prostitution lobby group. The only source for the 80% claim was a reference to another paper from 1999 - a paper I could not find on the internet to check their definition for 'trafficked' or their methodology in arriving at their figure. I'll continue to take it with an enormous pinch of salt for reasons I'm sure you'll understand.

_Beau_

SupaNova wrote: »

Replace prostitutes with binge drinkers, drug users, or soldiers. This statement can make sense for any group. And you should probably add the words not all at the start of this statement to be more accurate or even add a %.

Should all drinking, drug taking, military service be criminalized because some people suffer severely from these?

Prostitutes are not being criminalised. It's legal to provide their services.

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

Why are you against protecting prostitutes from the damage that their occupation inflicts upon them?

Why are you not for banning other professions that may result in harm to those working in them?

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

See, in real life, you may be able to get people to be quiet by saying they are sexist. Doesn't work as well on the internet. As I indicated in the lead-in, I was trying to give an example of things that women like more than men. It is my impression that it is women who tend to say "we need a new kitchen" or want to spend a lot of money on interior decoration. If one looks at people who do interior design courses, the vast majority are female. I don't believe it's sexist to believe that. Unless we are supposed to play a PC game and believe that men and women are exactly alike in every way.

Just shows the problem with discussions in the field. Feminists love to throw around the sexist word. It's a way to mean the issues aren't focused on.

Misogynists like to throw around the word 'feminist'. They also disagree with criminalising clients.

You ignored the rest of my post.

What other industries should be banned? You mentioned it being 'unfair' that clients might be criminalised and said that other industries ought to be banned too.

Is it acceptable to 'avail' of a woman's body who is being traumatised by that exchange?

rodento

_Beau_ wrote: »

You're avoiding the question.

Do you have evidence to support the assertion that prostitutes enjoy servicing clients?

I have provided proof that they don't. The onus is upon you to refute that evidence.

Hang on a second, please don't mis-quote me, I've never said they enjoy it, I said quite the opposite, sex with strangers probably bores them, its just something they do

And not all of it is invasive, plenty of massage therapists offer happy endings

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

Is it acceptable to 'avail' of a woman's body who is being traumatised by that exchange?

Is it acceptable to 'avail' of men's bodies, when they are being traumatised and/or killed in mines, factories, building sites and war zones?

_Beau_

SupaNova wrote: »

The statement could be extended to anyone, and fits perfectly with a how huge % of the population feel on a Sunday morning.

Prove that a 'huge % of the population' suffer from PTSD.

I believe that you can't (because they don't) and your comparison falls short, I'm afraid.

_Beau_

Dr Galen wrote: »

Someone posted a link to the turnoffthebluelight site. You passed this off. The studies could also be passed off as being part of a religious or über feminist agenda just as equally.

I asked for proof that the turnoffthebluelight site was being operated by sex workers, not clients, pimps or brothel owners.

No evidence was produced.

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why are you not for banning other professions that may result in harm to those working in them?

That's avoiding the question.

Why are you against protecting prostitutes from the psychological and emotional harm inflicted upon them by that profession?

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Is it acceptable to 'avail' of men's bodies, when they are being traumatised and/or killed in mines, factories, building sites and war zones?

You continually act like a troll - avoiding every valid question that I ask.

Is it acceptable to use a prostitute considering that the profession is psychologically damaging?

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

Why are you against protecting prostitutes from the psychological and emotional harm inflicted upon them by that profession?

Because to do otherwise is a disgusting and reprehensible restriction of the personal freedom of consenting adults.

_Beau_ wrote: »

That's avoiding the question.

I've just addressed the question. Now you address mine: why are you not in favour of criminalising the use of other services that can cause physical or psychological damage to those providing the service? Why is prostitution a special case?

SupaNova

_Beau_ wrote: »

That's avoiding the question.

Why are you against protecting prostitutes from the psychological and emotional harm inflicted upon them by that profession?

No one is against protecting prostitutes. What you have been repeating is that the act of selling sex causes damage. Not a single study has shown this to be true. Studies have shown that working in the sex industry is dangerous and can negatively affect sex workers physically and emotionally. Can you see the difference?