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

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

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.

In what other situations does the State not allow adults work at a job and criminalise people who employ them? Who said every prostitute is more vulnerable than nearly every other adult in society - an example was given earlier of women in US colleges who are call girls - are they the most vulnerable people in society? What about a man with, say, a sick wife and four children - could he be exploited also? Is it not possible for lots of people to be vulnerable?

_Beau_ wrote: »

Shouldn't the State help them?

For at least some of the people working in the field, who decided to do the job, such as those at http://www.turnoffthebluelight.ie/ , it doesn't look like help at all, it looks the opposite.

Is it like the missionaries trying to rescue people from their ways?

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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

I have supported everything that I have said. You have supported nothing.

My beliefs are based on facts. What are yours based on?

_Beau_

Dr Galen wrote: »

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?

Post it again, please.

I'm finding it difficult to keep track of all of these posts.

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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

It's criminalising clients because prostitutes suffer psychological damage as a result of being bought and sold as a sex object.

I don't understand your comparison with tennis.

_Beau_

rodento wrote: »

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

How does the State protect anyone who loses their income?

In all of the studies that I posted, the prostitutes wanted to leave the industry.

They need enormous help afterwards, both with their lack of skills, educational qualifications, interpersonal skills, their inability to form close relationships and so on.

What they need is psychological, financial and practical support.

_Beau_

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

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

I have quoted five or six studies that were carried out internationally over a twenty year period and they all provided the same results showing that prostitution damaged prostitutes enormously.

Do you have any proof to support your personal view that they aren't being damaged?

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

In all of the studies that I posted, the prostitutes wanted to leave the industry.

How do you explain these prostitutes http://www.turnoffthebluelight.ie/ who don't?

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

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.

Have you asked them? You cannot read their minds so you cannot support your assertion.

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?

You're the only one who is comparing them. The law does not recognise such a marriage as a form of prostitution.

Do you think she might not have married him only for his wealth?

I can't read her mind. Neither can you.

Dr Galen

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?

There you go _Beau_

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

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.

My reasoning? I'm just linking you to facts. The Law isn't preventing women from selling their bodies; it's legal to do so. Just as it is legal for a soldier or police officer to carry out their job.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

Have you asked them? You cannot read their minds so you cannot support your assertion.

All my assertion depends on is that there have been marriages where women wouldn't have married the man if he had similar income/assets to her. Ask honest people if they believe such marriages have ever taken place and I believe most would say they have. And yet, the State doesn't take efforts to protect women from being "exploited" in this way - why is that? Is it because the size of the transaction is bigger? If it is, would prostitution be ok if the cost of the transaction was bigger? Or is it for religious reasons and that sex is only ok within marriage?

_Beau_

Dr Galen wrote: »

There you go _Beau_

Getting "it" out of one's system, I'm assuming, means getting laid for pleasure.

That doesn't happen to prostitutes - they don't get laid, the client does.

Dr Galen

_Beau_ wrote: »

Getting "it" out of one's system, I'm assuming, means getting laid for pleasure.

That doesn't happen to prostitutes - they don't get laid, the client does.

Thats not what I asked you though.

Bodhisopha

_Beau_ wrote: »

Getting "it" out of one's system, I'm assuming, means getting laid for pleasure.

That doesn't happen to prostitutes - they don't get laid, the client does.

One gets laid, the other gets paid.

Have our moral guardians been in dialogue with the sex workers of this country? Or is it just the nuns that have been consulted?

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

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

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.

I'm genuinely baffled as to how you would consider it apt to compare that to a person who volunteers to test medical products.

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

My reasoning? I'm just linking you to facts. The Law isn't preventing women from selling their bodies; it's legal to do so. Just as it is legal for a soldier or police officer to carry out their job.

I never said anything about the legal status of those careers.

You're saying the state should protect prostitutes because what they do is psychologically damaging. So why not afford them same protection to the soldier and police officers who would be at risk of psychological damage.

ihacs

Bodhisopha wrote: »

One gets laid, the other gets paid.

Have our moral guardians been in dialogue with the sex workers of this country? Or is it just the nuns that have been consulted?

I'm not an expert but it appears religious organisations support groups/organisations which want more laws banning prostitution (these organisations can appear to talk for current or former prostitutes); but organisations such as "turn off blue light" http://www.turnoffthebluelight.ie/ involving prostitutes who say they want to work in the field don't get the support of the religious organisations.

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

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.

I'm genuinely baffled as to how you would consider it apt to compare that to a person who volunteers to test medical products.

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.

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.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

In what other situations does the State not allow adults work at a job and criminalise people who employ them? Who said every prostitute is more vulnerable than nearly every other adult in society - an example was given earlier of women in US colleges who are call girls - are they the most vulnerable people in society? What about a man with, say, a sick wife and four children - could he be exploited also? Is it not possible for lots of people to be vulnerable?

Do you have an argument against protecting those who are vulnerable, working in prostitution?

Is it like the missionaries trying to rescue people from their ways?

Are you implying that prostitutes enjoy servicing clients? If so, can you support that view?

Everything that I have cited proves otherwise.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

How do you explain these prostitutes http://www.turnoffthebluelight.ie/ who don't?

Do you have proof that they're sex workers, not pimps, clients or brothel owners?

Dr Galen

_Beau_ wrote: »

Getting "it" out of one's system, I'm assuming, means getting laid for pleasure.

That doesn't happen to prostitutes - they don't get laid, the client does.

Dr Galen wrote: »

Thats not what I asked you though.

You haven't addressed this yet

rodento

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

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

All my assertion depends on is that there have been marriages where women wouldn't have married the man if he had similar income/assets to her.

You don't know that. That's an unsubstantiated assertion.

Ask honest people if they believe such marriages have ever taken place and I believe most would say they have.

That's your opinion. Even if you could prove it, it would go from one opinion, to several opinions. Can you see what I'm getting at? They're just opinions, nothing more.

And yet, the State doesn't take efforts to protect women from being "exploited" in this way - why is that?

Why doesn't the State interfere in marriages where one person's assets exceeds those of the other? I suppose it's because, regardless of one's assets, and regardless of your view of one's choice of spouse and your opinion on their marriage, people are free to marry whomever they choose as long as both are of consenting age.

Is it because the size of the transaction is bigger?

It is only your opinion that such a marriage is a 'transaction'.

Or is it for religious reasons and that sex is only ok within marriage?

Premarital sex isn't illegal.

BlackRoom

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

_Beau_

Dr Galen wrote: »

Is it possible that soem people do not view sex as the invasive and emotional that others do?

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?

_Beau_

Bodhisopha wrote: »

One gets laid, the other gets paid.

Have our moral guardians been in dialogue with the sex workers of this country? Or is it just the nuns that have been consulted?

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

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

Do you have an argument against protecting those who are vulnerable, working in prostitution?

Because it seems unfair to ban this industry and not other industries. Most women of course won't care - they wouldn't avail of the industry. 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.

_Beau_ wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Is it like the missionaries trying to rescue people from their ways?

Are you implying that prostitutes enjoy servicing clients? If so, can you support that 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.

Yahew

_Beau_ wrote: »

Are you implying that prostitutes enjoy servicing clients? If so, can you support that view?

Everything that I have cited proves otherwise.

Maybe we should ask Belle De Jour, who is on twitter. A middle class woman scientist who enjoys sex with strangers, as many do, she became a self-employed escort "servicing" men whom she choose for up to £300 a hour. Two hours work a day, 5 days a week, thats £150K a year for something you enjoy.

The feminist/Religious reaction to Belle De Jour's choice to do what she want is to ban her. Totalitarian clap trap.

This will, of course, ban porn too - if taken to it's logical conclusion ( since porn is paid sex work) and porn stars probably have the same issues as sleeping with strangers as pros.

The sisters are aligning themselves with the Sisters ( of mercy). Save us all from this totalitarian claptrap.

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I never said anything about the legal status of those careers.

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.

You're saying the state should protect prostitutes because what they do is psychologically damaging. So why not afford them same protection to the soldier and police officers who would be at risk of psychological damage.

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

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

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.

All of them? Proof?