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

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

If the man paid for it, yes.

Why are against criminalising clients?

Because prostitution is either ok or it's not. Criminalising one side of the transaction is ludicrous. It's like making selling drugs legal but buying them illegal, or vice versa.

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

I'm not pro-military action; I'm a pacifist.

That doesn't answer what i asked.

Do you think people should be stopped from being soldiers and police officers because they are at risk of psychological trauma?

EDIT: I see you edited your post. The sexual nature is irrelevant. Stop side-stepping the question.

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

I'm not pro-military action; I'm a pacifist.

You continually ignore the sexually invasive nature of prostitution.

And you continue to dodge every question that challenges your beliefs.

anymore

_Beau_ wrote: »

Can you prove any of that?

Yes.

_Beau_

28064212 wrote: »

Sources?

Here. It contains information on the Netherlands and Germany.

Obviously, the fundamental part is not what I'm talking about. When prostitution is illegal, a prostitute is not entitled to a safe working environment. They're not entitled to health benefits, they're not entitled to the things that you take for granted in your workplace. Legalising and regulating means that they can be provided with these things.

Can you support your assumption that legalisation improves life for prostitutes?

Prove that having sex for money causes it. You haven't yet.

Yes, I have. Clearly, you have not read the studies.

Having sex for money where it's illegal and the industry is in the hands of criminals and prostitutes have no legal protection, yes, I'll accept that increases instances of PTSD.

If you actually read the studies you might understand what has lead to PTSD.

Any chance you could provide an answer to this question btw?

I did.

_Beau_

Paparazzo wrote: »

Because one partner might not enjoy sex as much as the other, it's no reason to ban it. Go to ranting and raving. Most people in the retail industry hate customers, but they do their job because they have to.
Why stop at sex? Any action where everyone in the group isn't enjoying it on the same level should be banned? Ikea would close down tomorrow!

Prove that any of those jobs are as equally traumatic as prostitution and I might take your comparison seriously.

n900guy

If they don't do this (criminalise it as above or in Sweden) the the Irish government will be out of sync with the UK on these matters, which would be unthinkable.

Dr Galen

I know that you are responding to several points here _Beau_ but when you get round to it, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on what I posted?

rodento

_Beau_ wrote: »

I'm not pro-military action; I'm a pacifist.

You continually ignore the sexually invasive nature of prostitution.

Anymore invasive than going to a doctor for swabs and tests:rolleyes:

Now how can you protect someone by cutting off their income stream...

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

It's only legal because people who disagree with, like yourself, have not been allowed make it become illegal; they/you have not been allowed force their/your views on others so that others can't either earn money from the industry or enjoy the industry because it gives them sensual pleasure. Instead, it can exist, but you don't have to either avail of the industry or take part.

Quote where I said that I disagree with eating meat - I said that I personally have chosen not to eat it.

If it's okay to gain sensual pleasure from the industry, even though those who work in it suffer psychologically, why not legalise child abuse?

_Beau_

rodento wrote: »

Anymore invasive than going to a doctor for swabs and tests:rolleyes:

Taking a swab is no more invasive than having to perform whatever sexual acts a client demands?

Do you really believe that?

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

If it's okay to gain sensual pleasure from the industry, even though those who work in it suffer psychologically, why not legalise child abuse?

If it's ok to criminalise prostitution, why not criminalise tennis? :rolleyes:

rodento

_Beau_ wrote: »

Taking a swab is no more invasive than having to perform whatever sexual acts a client demands?

Do you really believe that?

Doctors carry out all sorts of invasive test on men and women:rolleyes:

_Beau_

28064212 wrote: »

A claim you have yet to substantiate

For the third time, read the studies that I have posted. I have substantiated everything that I have claimed.

I've read some of them, some I don't have access to. Can you post some stats/info that shows accepting sex in exchange for money is sexual abuse? Note: shows that this is the sole cause. Not working in a criminal industry, not assault, not drugs. Exchanging money for sex

I would if that's what I claimed, but, I didn't.

What does one person have to do with anything? There could be one person exactly like that, there could be one million. The number is totally irrelevant.

So any chance you could actually answer the question instead of dodging it?

You described one person. Does the country legislate to suit one person? If not, then I don't see how your question is relevant to this debate. The studies examined the effects on hundreds of people; ignoring the reality to suit one in a million just wouldn't make sense.

_Beau_

rodento wrote: »

Doctors carry out all sorts of invasive test on men and women:rolleyes:

Are the tests of a sexual nature?

Does the doctor do it for sexual pleasure?

Your comparison is preposterous.

rodento

Beau how do you protect these women by taking away their livelihoods

_Beau_

.

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

That doesn't answer what i asked.

Do you think people should be stopped from being soldiers and police officers because they are at risk of psychological trauma?

EDIT: I see you edited your post. The sexual nature is irrelevant. Stop side-stepping the question.

The sexual nature of prostitution is irrelevant?

Isn't that the crux of the discussion?

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

Quote where I said that I disagree with eating meat - I said that I personally have chosen not to eat it.

If it's okay to gain sensual pleasure from the industry, even though those who work in it suffer psychologically, why not legalise child abuse?

Because children aren't adults, free to make their own decisions. We protect children, we let adults make their own choices. Some adults go rock-climbing, for example - a dangerous activity but we don't block people from doing it.

Also, if the threshold is that one can't suffer physically or psychologically from a job, a lot of jobs would be banned and employers could be criminalised.

rodento

_Beau_ wrote: »

Are the tests of a sexual nature?

Does the doctor do it for sexual pleasure?

Your comparison is preposterous.

How so, do you think the women get any joy from it???

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

Because children aren't adults, free to make their own decisions. We protect children, we let adults make their own choices. Some adults go rock-climbing, for example - a dangerous activity but we don't block people from doing it.

Also, if the threshold is that one can't suffer physically or psychologically from a job, a lot of jobs would be banned and employers could be criminalised.

The State protects the vulnerable and that includes prostitutes. They mainly come from disadvantaged backgrounds, most have been abused as children, many of them are addicted to substances, and nearly all of them want to exit the industry.

Shouldn't the State help them? Or should the State become their pimp?

rodento

_Beau_ wrote: »

The State protects the vulnerable and that includes prostitutes. They mainly come from disadvantaged backgrounds, most have been abused as children, many of them are addicted to substances, and nearly all of them want to exit the industry.

Shouldn't the State help them? Or should the State become their pimp?

How does the state protect them if it cuts off their income, just makes them more vulnerable

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

They can suffer physically if they have a bad reaction to the substance being tested on them. Yet they know the risks and choose to do so.

Do volunteers suffer severe psychological consequences? Prostitutes do and that's why they should be protected.

_Beau_

_Beau_ wrote: »

The State protects the vulnerable and that includes prostitutes. They mainly come from disadvantaged backgrounds, most have been abused as children, many of them are addicted to substances, and nearly all of them want to exit the industry.

Shouldn't the State help them? Or should the State become their pimp?

Proof for the bold part? Proof relating to Ireland 2011 please, I don't want some report from Vietnam dating 1975.

_Beau_

Dr Galen wrote: »

Is it possible that soem people do not view sex as the invasive and emotional that others do? I've known quite a few people over the years that view sex as little more than a body function like breathing, and have often had sex in less than ideal circumstances simply to get "it" out of their system?

Prostitutes don't get 'it' out of their system; their sexual needs are not being met. The only person who is getting 'it' is the client.

Being used as an object is invasive and intrinsically psychologically damaging.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

ihacs wrote:

What is the distinction? If the man wouldn't have given her things if she would never have sex with him and the woman wouldn't have married the man if he had the same assets as her and wouldn't be in position to transfer some of his assets to her, what is the difference with prostitution? Is it that this exchange is ok inside marriage but isn't ok outside of marriage?

Describing a wealthy man as a pimp and his bride as a prostitute is a bizarre and judgemental view of their marriage.

You are the person who is putting those words on them - I want to find out what the distinction is. I'm saying that some women have married, and hence agreed to have sex with, men they wouldn't have had sex with only because of the man's money/assets. And the men wouldn't have spent as much money/given out as much money if the woman had said they were never having sex. We don't try to ban this - why do we make the distinction? Is it because, as I said, the exchange is seen as ok once it happens within marriage?

Also, a lot of people would, I think, believe that in such a situation each is "exploiting" the other rather than the exploitation being in one direction; they're making an exchange that they are happy with and enter as adults.

_Beau_ wrote: »

Paul McCartney has just married a young attractive woman. Is her her pimp?

You are using the word, pimp. I have no idea if the attractive woman would have married him if he had a median income/assets - he seems a charismatic guy so maybe she would. Do you think she might not have married him only for his wealth?
I believe for example than Anna Nicole Smith wouldn't have married the millionaire in his 80s if he just had the median assets/income of a pensioner.

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

The sexual nature of prostitution is irrelevant?

Isn't that the crux of the discussion?

You said this

When an occupation has been proven to be psychologically damaging, it's not simply a case of 'let other consenting adults decide for themselves'. The State is obliged to protect those people.

And i raised the following point

People working as soldiers and police officers can suffer psychologically in their occupations. Should they be stopped from working too.

Given that you've previously stated that prostitutes are at risk of PTSD, then by your reasoning soldiers and police officers, who are also at risk of PTSD, should be prevented from pursuing thoise careers by the state.

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Because prostitution is either ok or it's not. Criminalising one side of the transaction is ludicrous. It's like making selling drugs legal but buying them illegal, or vice versa.

What's wrong with criminalising clients?

That way, a prostitute can go to the police if she has been raped or assaulted, as most prostitutes are, and not fear being prosecuted for prostitution.

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

Do volunteers suffer severe psychological consequences? Prostitutes do and that's why they should be protected.

So even though they are at risk from physical harm, it doesn't matter if they dont suffer psychological damage as well?

_Beau_

rodento wrote: »

How so, do you think the women get any joy from it???

I could make an equally bizarre comparison.

Standing in front of the mirror is no different to standing on stage naked and on camera - on national television.

Preposterous.