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

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

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?

I've answered the question. Now you answer the logical corollary.

jam_mac_jam

_Beau_ wrote: »

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?

Its not for the state to ban two consenting adults doing what they choose to. Its ok if you pay them and they agree.

SupaNova

Is it ok to purchase the services of a carpenter who doesn't enjoy his work?

latenia

At the end of the day the majority of hookers are free to stop any time they want-they've weighed up their options and decided that lying on their backs for half an hour beats working in McDonalds for 10 hours.

The minority who aren't are already 'protected' by existing laws or are trapped by their own lifestyle choices.

If this law was ever introduced I'd love to see the cops organise a sting involving a male escort and some female "clients" for their first case just to see the look on the faces of the unelected feminazis in the senate who are floating this nonsense.

_Beau_

SupaNova wrote: »

No one is against protecting prostitutes. What you have been repeating is that the act of selling sex causes damage.

The act of being a sex object is what causes the damage. Lacking power economically, being inferior, dehumanised, stigmatised, commodified, having to perform whatever acts the client requests on demand, servicing strangers that one would not otherwise sleep with, having to develop coping mechanisms to deal with servicing strangers, being unable to trust people, feeling detached from one's body, being unable to form meaningful relationships, being left with a feeling self-loathing and suicidal thoughts - that is what is damaging.

Can you see the difference?

Can you now see what prostitution entails? You're simply viewing it as sex for money. You're ignoring what makes it intrinsically harmful.

Monty Burnz

Still waiting for an answer to my question, having provided an explicit answer as demanded...

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

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

Misogynists: there's another insult that feminists as well others who make money from the so-called "equality" industry love to throw around. I clearly prefaced what I said as an example off the top of my head of an industry women wouldn't like seeing banned and one could maybe (just about) make a comparable analogy with.

It was nothing to do with tying women to the kitchen. I believe that women who work outside the home also have just as much interest in interior decoration, "new" kitchens, etc. I believe men and women tend on average to have different things they like in some areas for whatever reason. It doesn't make one superior to the other.

Just because women did most of the housework in the past doesn't mean that it is sexist to believe that women have different preferences than men. Are you supposed to be some sort of academic looking at gender issues (given you are working on some survey of sex workers, I'm guessing you are)? It sounds like if your analysis will not cover all interpretations of the data if you think suggesting that somebody saying women might be more interested in interior decoration, etc is sexist.

_Beau_ wrote: »

You ignored the rest of my post.

I'm trying to do other stuff on the computer. I wanted to reply to the "sexist" insult. Just as I want to reply to the use of misognynist in this post.

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

You said that according to my reasoning, taking into account the risk of PTSD to soldiers and police officers, that they ought to be prevented from pursuing their careers. As my view is to criminalise the clients of prostitutes, that implies that should my reasoning be applied to soldiers and police officers, that I would advocate criminalising those careers.

And given that preventing soldiers and police officers who choose to pursue those careers despite the risks wouldn't work neither would preventing prostitutes. Regardless of attempts to criminalize clients or prostitutes it will happen regardless and be pushed further underground and into riskier territory.

Are you suggesting that we remove police officers from the street because of the risk of PTSD associated with their job?

No because they volunteer fully aware of the risk. Prostitutes can also make that choice of their own free will while weighing up the pros and cons (including PTSD which i doubt is a major affliction among prostitutes)

rodento

God you must hate men, plenty of women sleep with strangers they pull in nightclubs every weekend, don't think they ever suffered or had to learn to cope with it

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

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've just ignored half of what i said. They also both provide their bodies (albeit in different ways) to others for a fee.

Also i've never said i dont want to protect prostitutes so dont try and claim that i dont. I'm completely against women being forced to do it against there will and that should be fully pursued and prosecuted by the law.

However if a prostitute chooses to work herself without being forced into it by someone else than why would she need protection.

The damage has been proven.

No it hasnt. You've ignored the website that ihacs linked to which contradicts the evidence you've put forward.

SupaNova

_Beau_ wrote: »

The act of being a sex object is what causes the damage.

You will have to define what you mean by sex object first.

Lacking power economically

Prostitutes have options. Taking working in McDonalds vs selling sex, it's obvious which gives them more economic power.

being inferior

So you think prostitutes are inferior?

dehumanised

What do you mean by dehumanised? You think people who sell sex are not human?

stigmatised

So not the act of selling sex but people's view of them as inferior?

commodified

I sell myself as a commodity also, just in a different industry. Pointless term.

having to perform whatever acts the client requests on demand

Not true. Prostitutes have a choice of what services they offer as well as a choice to be a prostitute in the first place.

servicing strangers that one would not otherwise sleep with

Yes this is what the job they choose entails.

having to develop coping mechanisms to deal with servicing strangers

No where has it been proving that having sex with strangers damages people.

being unable to trust people feeling detached from one's body, being unable to form meaningful relationships, being left with a feeling self-loathing and suicidal thoughts - that is what is damaging.

Studies do show some of this to be true for a large % of prostitutes. They don't show selling sex as the cause.

Monty Burnz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Still waiting for an answer to my question, having provided an explicit answer as demanded...

Still waiting for Beau - that demander of answers - to answer the question...:rolleyes:

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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

Using a person as a sex object is not a personal freedom, not least because money is exchanged.

You are not free to pick and choose what you buy and sell - the Government decides that.

Is protecting prostitutes disgusting and reprehensible?

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?

The severity of their trauma makes them 'special' and weighing that against the service that they provide reveals that the service provided does not justify the trauma it inflicts.

Dr Galen

I do find it a bit strange (maybe thats the wrong word but it's the best I've got right now) that you seem to fixed on female prostitutes _Beau_. There are many male sex workers around too, and often, their circumstances and background can be just as bad, if not worse, that many females. You consistently use the female term though, is that just because it's prostitution within that gender group that you are familiar with etc?

I also find it strange that you fail to recognise the issue of consent. Can I ask, if a situation arose, whereby two consenting adults make a transaction - sex acts for money, would you be ok with it?

_Beau_

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Its not for the state to ban two consenting adults doing what they choose to. Its ok if you pay them and they agree.

Who decides what businesses are acceptable and unacceptable if not the State?

rodento

You are been evasive, states change laws all the time, the question was aimed at you

_Beau_

SupaNova wrote: »

Is it ok to purchase the services of a carpenter who doesn't enjoy his work?

You're still using the same old phrase - don't enjoy their job.

Can you genuinely not grasp why prostitution is so damaging (unlike jobs that people just dislike)?

_Beau_

latenia wrote: »

At the end of the day the majority of hookers are free to stop any time they want-they've weighed up their options and decided that lying on their backs for half an hour beats working in McDonalds for 10 hours.

That's only your personal opinion. Are you stating it as a fact? If so, prove it?

If this law was ever introduced I'd love to see the cops organise a sting involving a male escort and some female "clients" for their first case just to see the look on the faces of the unelected feminazis in the senate who are floating this nonsense.

This 'nonsense' is being dictated by EU guidelines, not the Senate.

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

Using a person as a sex object is not a personal freedom, not least because money is exchanged.

Pure opinion. I disagree.

_Beau_ wrote: »

You are not free to pick and choose what you buy and sell - the Government decides that.

Yes you are, unless there is a compelling societal reason for the government to get in the way.

_Beau_ wrote: »

Is protecting prostitutes disgusting and reprehensible?

Not at all, I'm all for it. Legalisation is almost certainly the best way if you are genuinely interested in protecting prostitutes, rather than engaging in a moral crusade that is doomed to fail (as it has failed every time it's been tried).

_Beau_ wrote: »

The severity of their trauma makes them 'special' and weighing that against the service that they provide reveals that the service provided does not justify the trauma it inflicts.

Who are you to judge whether their trauma exceeds that of battlefield soldiers, police, fire fighters, paramedics? This is pure opinion on your part again. And your estimate of the value of the service they provide is again pure opinion - what price can you put on relieving the sexual frustration of lonely people?

So in response to the question, all you have to offer is ill-supported opinion. Bravo.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

Misogynists: there's another insult that feminists as well others who make money from the so-called "equality" industry love to throw around. I clearly prefaced what I said as an example off the top of my head of an industry women wouldn't like seeing banned and one could maybe (just about) make a comparable analogy with.

It was nothing to do with tying women to the kitchen. I believe that women who work outside the home also have just as much interest in interior decoration, "new" kitchens, etc. I believe men and women tend on average to have different things they like in some areas for whatever reason. It doesn't make one superior to the other.

Just because women did most of the housework in the past doesn't mean that it is sexist to believe that women have different preferences than men. Are you supposed to be some sort of academic looking at gender issues (given you are working on some survey of sex workers, I'm guessing you are)? It sounds like if your analysis will not cover all interpretations of the data if you think suggesting that somebody saying women might be more interested in interior decoration, etc is sexist.

In my experience, misogynists usually don't provide facts to support their sexist generalisations, but, they do offer generalisations to support their sexist views.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

In my experience, misogynists usually don't provide facts to support their sexist generalisations, but, they do offer generalisations to support their sexist views.

What about the misandrists?

----
Also, if you are saying you think saying women have more interest on average in interior design is a sexist generalisation and evidence of sexism and misogyny, I'm going to differ from you and think you have a tendency to rush to use the words "sexist"/"sexism" and "misogyny"/"misogynist", which might be better to be conquered if you want to be a good academic as well as suggesting you may need to become a more tolerant person.

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

In my experience, misogynists usually don't provide facts to support their sexist generalisations, but, they do offer generalisations to support their sexist views.

You are characterising anyone who disagrees with you as misogynist? Isn't this the same tactic that Zionists use to dismiss any criticism of Israel's actions - that the people making the argument are anti-semites? :rolleyes:

rodento

Beau have you ever thought that pushing this further underground just makes the situation worse for those working in the industry. You have never explained how the change in law will protect those involved, it in my book will just make it worse as the fear of been caught could lead to more violence to people caught up in the industry

Monty Burnz

rodento wrote: »

Beau have you ever thought that pushing this further underground just makes the situation worse for those working in the industry. You have never explained how the change in law will protect those involved, it in my book will just make it worse as the fear of been caught could lead to more violence to people caught up in the industry

Don't be so quick to judge - haven't you noticed how the criminalisation of drugs has totally eliminated both the industry and of course all the harm associated with it? And recall how the prohibition of alcohol in the US totally killed the demand for and the consumption of alcohol, dealing a severe blow to the criminal world and drastically reducing the number of machine-gun massacres? :pac:

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

And given that preventing soldiers and police officers who choose to pursue those careers despite the risks wouldn't work neither would preventing prostitutes. Regardless of attempts to criminalize clients or prostitutes it will happen regardless and be pushed further underground and into riskier territory.

Sweden, Norway and Iceland have adopted legislation that has proven to act as a deterrent to clients.

Reducing demand will inevitably affect supply.

If Ireland does not go along with EU guidelines, it will likely become a haven for traffickers and pimps. Would that be more desirable? That's the alternative.

No because they volunteer fully aware of the risk. Prostitutes can also make that choice of their own free will while weighing up the pros and cons (including PTSD which i doubt is a major affliction among prostitutes)

Women don't wake up one morning and decide to become a prostitute. Their lives are abusive, for most of them, right from the start.

'Another statistic that belies the claim of a victimless crime is from the Council for Prostitution Alternatives, in Portland, Oregon. In one Annual Report they found that 85 percent of surveyed prostitutes reported a history of sexual abuse in childhood, while 70 percent reported incest. Compare that to estimates of childhood sexual abuse in the general population at anywhere from 15- 38 percent of women and 12-16 percent of men, and the conclusions are clear.

Other statistics bring the picture further into focus, such as those that claim that the vast majority of prostitutes are also raped by their "pimps" while in their service, over half have been raped or beaten by a client, more than three quarters have been physically assaulted while in prostitution and/or have attempted suicide, and that 67 percent meet diagnostic criteria for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To say that these prostitutes have willingly made an informed decision about their "chosen" field is a stretch of the imagination.'

Source

_Beau_

rodento wrote: »

God you must hate men, plenty of women sleep with strangers they pull in nightclubs every weekend, don't think they ever suffered or had to learn to cope with it

I want to protect vulnerable members of society. That's not hateful. Wanting to compound their pain is hateful. That's what you're advocating. It's misogynistic.

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

You've just ignored half of what i said. They also both provide their bodies (albeit in different ways) to others for a fee.

Also i've never said i dont want to protect prostitutes so dont try and claim that i dont. I'm completely against women being forced to do it against there will and that should be fully pursued and prosecuted by the law.

However if a prostitute chooses to work herself without being forced into it by someone else than why would she need protection.

How can the authorities distinguish between those who choose it, and those who don't?

No it hasnt.

I have posted numerous studies and they have all found the same thing - prostitution is psychologically damaging.

You've ignored the website that ihacs linked to which contradicts the evidence you've put forward.

I acknowledged it and asked that he prove its authenticity. He has not provided any evidence that sex workers operate it. You or I could create the very same site and claim to be sex workers, but, that wouldn't make it so.

nokia69

beau

have a read of this thread from another site

it makes for interesting reading

http://www.saafe.info/main/index.php?topic=3830.msg34859#msg34859

maybe you should register over there and talk to some women who know a little more about the subject than you

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

Sweden, Norway and Iceland have adopted legislation that has proven to act as a deterrent to clients.

Reducing demand will inevitably affect supply.

If Ireland does not go along with EU guidelines, it will likely become a haven for traffickers and pimps. Would that be more desirable? That's the alternative.

It acts as a deterent to client but does it stop women from becoming prostitutes. Whats to stop them operating more discreetly so to keep under the radar or to go on operate in another country?

The prostitutes will still be there regardless of legislation.

Women don't wake up one morning and decide to become a prostitute. Their lives are abusive, for most of them, right from the start.

'Another statistic that belies the claim of a victimless crime is from the Council for Prostitution Alternatives, in Portland, Oregon. In one Annual Report they found that 85 percent of surveyed prostitutes reported a history of sexual abuse in childhood, while 70 percent reported incest. Compare that to estimates of childhood sexual abuse in the general population at anywhere from 15- 38 percent of women and 12-16 percent of men, and the conclusions are clear.

Other statistics bring the picture further into focus, such as those that claim that the vast majority of prostitutes are also raped by their "pimps" while in their service, over half have been raped or beaten by a client, more than three quarters have been physically assaulted while in prostitution and/or have attempted suicide, and that 67 percent meet diagnostic criteria for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To say that these prostitutes have willingly made an informed decision about their "chosen" field is a stretch of the imagination.'

Source

I presume here he is referring to prostitutes who work on the street since he refers to pimps. These women usually are drug users and would be in need of protection.


But what about prostitutes who aren't drug users, who don't have a pimp and operate out of houses and hotels. There are also high-class prostitutes who wouldnt fit the bill of the drug using prostitute.

Given that these women wouldnt be in need of help why should they be stopped from charging for sex too?

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

How can the authorities distinguish between those who choose it, and those who don't?

They could tell them for a start.

I have posted numerous studies and they have all found the same thing - prostitution is psychologically damaging.

And other users on this thread called some of those reports into question.

I acknowledged it and asked that he prove its authenticity. He has not provided any evidence that sex workers operate it. You or I could create the very same site and claim to be sex workers, but, that wouldn't make it so.

Theres a contact section on the site. You could perhaps contact them and see how real they are for yourself.

And given that they turned up in the flesh to protest at Google headquarters at least we know they're not imaginary.

http://www.nswp.org/fr/news-story/turn-the-blue-light-protest-discrimination-google

_Beau_

SupaNova wrote: »

You will have to define what you mean by sex object first.

A person viewed or treated as a means of obtaining sexual gratification

Prostitutes have options. Taking working in McDonalds vs selling sex, it's obvious which gives them more economic power.

If prostitution is a free choice, why is it that it is always the women and girls who have the fewest alternatives who are the ones who end up in prostitution?

So you think prostitutes are inferior?

They're in an inferior position to their clients, socially and economically.

What do you mean by dehumanised? You think people who sell sex are not human?

Dehumanised = objectified.

So not the act of selling sex but people's view of them as inferior?

(see above)

I sell myself as a commodity also, just in a different industry. Pointless term.

You're not the commodity, your labour is.

Not true. Prostitutes have a choice of what services they offer as well as a choice to be a prostitute in the first place.

Can you prove that to be more than just your opinion?

No where has it been proving that having sex with strangers damages people.

In the exchange, one is having sex, the other is not. Disassociation is necessary and that compounds the psychological damage of engaging in sexual acts with men that a prostitute neither likes nor wants to sleep with. She slips into a dissociative state in order to cope.



"PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder] is characterized by anxiety, depression, insomnia, irritability, flashbacks, emotional numbing, and hyperalertness. Symptoms are more severe and long lasting when the stressor is of human design. PTSD is normative among prostituted women. Farley et al. (2003) found a PTSD prevalence rate of 68% among those in prostitution in nine countries. This rate was comparable to the rates of PTSD among battered women seeking shelter, rape survivors, and survivors of state-sponsored torture....

Dissociation occurs during extreme stress among prisoners of war who are tortured, among children who are sexually assaulted, and among women who are battered, raped, or prostituted. Dissociation, depression, and other mood disorders are common among prostituted women in street, escort, and strip club prostitution. Dissociation in prostitution results from both childhood sexual violence and sexual violence in adult prostitution. At the same time, dissociation is a job requirement for surviving prostitution."

Source: Melissa Farley, PhD, Founding Director of the Prostitution Research and Education, "Bad for the Body, Bad for the Heart" in the Oct. 2004 Violence Against Women.

Studies do show some of this to be true for a large % of prostitutes. They don't show selling sex as the cause.

(see above - disassociation)

Monty Burnz

nokia69 wrote: »

beau

have a read of this thread from another site

it makes for interesting reading

http://www.saafe.info/main/index.php?topic=3830.msg34859#msg34859

maybe you should register over there and talk to some women who know a little more about the subject than you

I think Beau's mind was made up before he/she did any research into this, and then just found the research that backs up his/her preconceived notions. The ossified thinking in evidence in his/her posts is strong evidence for this. So I don't think first hand testimony will make any more difference than the demolition of his/her arguments in this thread.

Still, I'm rather surprised home some people get into the sex industry...

I found a tenant of mine doing it when I was trying to sell a house. She had forgotten to tidy away her collapsible dungeon and the estate agent came round to do a block viewing!

I though she was an architect and had a chat with her. She was, and is, and worked from home, (my flat), twice a week and did some AW work on the side.

Though no more of it until I became single and, having a high sex drive and no outlet, thought - give it a go! No pics, basic profile and a very high rate in AW, I had 3 bookings in the first week as the newbie.

After dabbling a bit for 3 months I had some pics done and re-vamped the profile and never looked back - 2.5 years. Wish I had started younger.

_Beau_

Dr Galen wrote: »

I do find it a bit strange (maybe thats the wrong word but it's the best I've got right now) that you seem to fixed on female prostitutes _Beau_. There are many male sex workers around too, and often, their circumstances and background can be just as bad, if not worse, that many females. You consistently use the female term though, is that just because it's prostitution within that gender group that you are familiar with etc?

My apologies. To keep it simple (and taking into account the fact that there are more female sex workers than males in every country except Thailand) I'm using the term "she".

By the way, the experiences of male prostitutes is similar to that of females, according to the studies that I cited, the few that included men (considering the disparity between the genders internationally in the sex trade) so when I use the term "she" you can take that to mean "he" also.

I also find it strange that you fail to recognise the issue of consent.

Like I said earlier (to another poster) if prostitution was a free choice, why is it that it is mainly poor and disadvantaged girls and women (men and boys) who end up being prostitutes?

_Beau_

rodento wrote: »

You are been evasive, states change laws all the time, the question was aimed at you

jam_mac_jam posed no question.

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

Like I said earlier (to another poster) if prostitution was a free choice, why is it that it is mainly poor and disadvantaged girls and women (men and boys) who end up being prostitutes?

Without spending more than 3 seconds thinking about it, I suggest that it may have something to do with the fact that wealthy and advantaged women with education and skills can earn 6 figure salaries in more socially acceptable industries. It gives the poor and the disadvantaged the chance to bypass their disadvantages and get into the earning big-leagues.

I'm astonished that this isn't blindingly obvious to you.

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Pure opinion. I disagree.

The Constitution declares what your 'personal freedoms' are and it does not state that using a prostitute is a right nor a freedom that is bestowed upon you by the State.

Therefore, my view is not simply an opinion - it is a fact.

Yes you are, unless there is a compelling societal reason for the government to get in the way.

The Government 'gets in the way' of all profitable businesses in the form of regulation and taxation. You do not decide what you buy and sell - the State does.

Not at all, I'm all for it. Legalisation is almost certainly the best way if you are genuinely interested in protecting prostitutes

Can you prove that opinion?

rather than engaging in a moral crusade that is doomed to fail (as it has failed every time it's been tried).

Can you prove that opinion?

This legislation is new and it is proving successful in the EU member states that have already adopted it - Sweden, Norway and Iceland.

Who are you to judge whether their trauma exceeds that of battlefield soldiers, police, fire fighters, paramedics?

I did not decide anything; I cited a study and that was one of their findings.

This is pure opinion on your part again. And your estimate of the value of the service they provide is again pure opinion - what price can you put on relieving the sexual frustration of lonely people?

What price can you put on the psychological/emotional/physical health of a prostitute?

How does relieving sexual frustration (that does not in itself necessitate the services of a prostitute) justify causing harm to those who relieve it? That's unethical.

So in response to the question, all you have to offer is ill-supported opinion. Bravo.

Opinions don't require evidence; they are a subjective belief.

You are entitled to yours (favouring the client) and I'm entitled to mine (favouring the prostitute).

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

What about the misandrists?

What about them?

Also, if you are saying you think saying women have more interest on average in interior design is a sexist generalisation and evidence of sexism and misogyny, I'm going to differ from you and think you have a tendency to rush to use the words "sexist"/"sexism" and "misogyny"/"misogynist", which might be better to be conquered if you want to be a good academic as well as suggesting you may need to become a more tolerant person.

Tolerating abuse isn't an example of tolerance - it's indifference.

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You are characterising anyone who disagrees with you as misogynist?

You're basing that conclusion on the fact that I called one person a misogynist.

I'm sorry, but, it just doesn't stick.

_Beau_

rodento wrote: »

Beau have you ever thought that pushing this further underground just makes the situation worse for those working in the industry. You have never explained how the change in law will protect those involved, it in my book will just make it worse as the fear of been caught could lead to more violence to people caught up in the industry

Clients will fear being caught; prostitutes are not breaking the law.

_Beau_

nokia69 wrote: »

beau

have a read of this thread from another site

it makes for interesting reading

http://www.saafe.info/main/index.php?topic=3830.msg34859#msg34859

maybe you should register over there and talk to some women who know a little more about the subject than you

You created an alias to say that because you were too afraid to say it using your usual account.

That genuinely made me laugh.

Perhaps you should join the lovely ladies over there; they probably won't intimidate you as much as I do.

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It acts as a deterent to client but does it stop women from becoming prostitutes. Whats to stop them operating more discreetly so to keep under the radar or to go on operate in another country?

The prostitutes will still be there regardless of legislation.

Reduce demand => reduces supply

I presume here he is referring to prostitutes who work on the street since he refers to pimps. These women usually are drug users and would be in need of protection.

But what about prostitutes who aren't drug users, who don't have a pimp and operate out of houses and hotels. There are also high-class prostitutes who wouldnt fit the bill of the drug using prostitute.

Given that these women wouldnt be in need of help why should they be stopped from charging for sex too?

That's your opinion. If you'd like me to comment on it, please provide evidence to support it.

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

They could tell them for a start.

The Government to tell who what? Be clearer. I don't know what you're suggesting.

And other users on this thread called some of those reports into question.

You are perfectly entitled to trust the word of posters over a list of professionals who have a PhD in psychology. I'll go with the latter.

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Without spending more than 3 seconds thinking about it, I suggest that it may have something to do with the fact that wealthy and advantaged women with education and skills can earn 6 figure salaries in more socially acceptable industries. It gives the poor and the disadvantaged the chance to bypass their disadvantages and get into the earning big-leagues.

I'm astonished that this isn't blindingly obvious to you.

My argument belies claims that prostitutes 'weigh up the pros and cons' and 'freely choose' prostitution by highlighting that their choices are limited.

K-9

_Beau_ wrote: »

I believe it is the EU that is putting pressure on our Government to change its laws. It's not the RCC.

Do you have a source for this belief?

zuroph

If I was a girl, I'd totally consider it.

_Beau_

K-9 wrote: »

Do you have a source for this belief?

[ ] Seanad Éireann

...

notes evidence from Sweden and Norway which shows that criminal sanctions for the purchase of sex are a proven deterrent to prostitution and consequently to trafficking (McLeod et al. 2008) (Claude 2010);

Further notes that International Conventions repeatedly call for efficient measures to deter demand for prostitution, which is recognised as an efficient approach to reduce sex trafficking (Article 6, Council of Europe’s Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005; Article 9(5), UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish the Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children 2000)

House of Oireachtas

Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking of Human Beings (2005)

Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008

Monty Burnz

Somebody seems to be ignoring this website where actual women involved in the sex industry tell their stories. I wonder why?

I've been doing it for 10 years now! My marriage broke down very suddenly. He took all our money from the joint bank account, the car, all his stuff and stopped paying the mortgage. After he left I also discovered he was having an affair with my then best friend. The house got repossessed and I needed money quickly. I was a civil servant at the time and earning rubbish money. I watched a documentary on telly about a girl who was a university lecturer and was escorting in the evenings. I did some digging and began working for a local agency. I then advertised on a site called UK Escorts where the guy who runs Northern Angels found me and asked me to join his site. Got my own website a few years later. Oh, and I gave my job up a civil servant about a year after I started escorting. I paid all the debts my ex had accrued very quickly and haven't looked back! He did me a favour in a round about way. I love my life!

Gosh! I started around 10 years ago now!

Alot of these stories start with .....I split from my fella....... and mine is no different!

I worked in IT and was bored ****less, I split from my fella and literally walked out and left him everything and looked around and had not much to call my own.

I took out a loan to buy stuff to furnish a new flat and was struggling to make repayments, a very wonderful wonderful friend of mine loaned me 10k to consolidate all my various outgoings.

I had an email from a guy on a dating site asking if I was interested in purchasing his services, I said no but might be interested in working myself! Next thing I know we meet up and he agrees to be my pimp! He was good in getting me started and was able to pay off my friends loan very quickly for which I am eternally grateful!

Now I am in and out the business and as Amber also says I adore my life!

Of course, all stories aren't as positive as that, but I don't feel the need to manipulate the truth or ignore facts to make my argument.

_Beau_

What percentage of the world's prostitute population are on that site? I'll be far too generous in my example, but, the message ought to be clear.

Do you understand that if 100 people had cancer and 80% of them suffered symptoms of depression following their diagnosis, while 20% chatted happily online about their experiences, that the happy chatters wouldn't belie the claims made by the majority?

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't feel the need to acknowledge the truth or provide facts to make my argument.

Fixed.

[MOD]Don't do FYP. It's not big, or clever, or funny. It just annoys people.[/MOD]

_Beau_

You're manipulating facts by highlighting anecdotal examples to support your opinion [which has yet to be substantiated by actual academic studies].

I could highlight anecdotal evidence too.

Here:

I started in Oct 2008. I split from a very abusive boyfriend in Spring 2008 and he left me homeless (house was in his name) . I wanted to go to college when we were together but he got his sister to enrol on the same course as me and taunt me until I gave up and left the course . I was soooo happy to be FREEEE to study but also very short of money and needed things for my new house. After I had cut a Mars bar into 12 pieces to last for 3 days food I knew I had to do something. I already had a minimum wage job but I'd need to work v.long hours to even scrape by and I couldn't as I wanted to study too

It proves nothing.