Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2014

2»

Comments

  • #52
    aare
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭aare


    volchitsa wrote: »

    But none of them want to ban it as a way of preventing men from getting sex. FFS!

    Personally I think it is all about power and profit (that the laundries were too if you look closely) ...BUT...

    When you look at the grunts and footsoldiers at the Radfem conferences I have monitored there really is a weird and scary undercurrent of seeking to present the nature of inherent male sexuality as some kind of crime of violence against women that must be ruthlessly stamped out...and they aren't even kidding.

    Now whatever the pros and cons of male sexuality (as a women I have done my far share of moaning about it, and as a sex worker I did even more) it's like PMS or a touch of the baby broodies...

    NOT a matter for ideology, let alone legislation...because male sexuality is "what dudes do" they are stuck with it whether they like it or not, and the best they could ever do is suppress it which IS NOT HEALTHY...


  • #53
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,755 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    The Mustard wrote: »
    You have to twist the point, misrepresent it a bit, in order to be 'shocked'.

    Nobody said 'punish the women'. Nobody. What was suggested that IF the buyer must be made criminally liable, then so should the seller.

    Very simple no?

    Apparently not.
    But that is exactly what that sentence means - the posters would find the legislation acceptable as long as the women are also liable to be punished. I don't see how that this is misrepresenting that point of view, it's just paring it down to its most fundamental element. I get that some of the posters suggesting it may not have thought it through, and are reacting according to a simple male/female mirror image of the situation, but that is what it comes down to all the same - their objection is only to the perceived unfairness of not punishing the women as well as the men, and if that is rectified, they have no further major objections.

    So yes. I find that a bit shocking. For the reasons I've given.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #54
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    volchitsa wrote: »
    But that is exactly what that sentence means - the posters would find the legislation acceptable as long as the women are also liable to be punished. I don't see how that this is misrepresenting that point of view, it's just paring it down to its most fundamental element.

    Nope. Because there are two parties. Paring it down to one element, or one party is what you are doing here, wilfully ignoring that there are two parties. And you're 'shocked' again because people want to 'punish the women' as you say, which is very dramatic to say the least.

    Either prostitution should be criminalised or not, but it shouldn't be an absurd half way house where its legal for some but not others.


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    aare wrote: »
    Most of that help being in the form of providing work and accommodation in Magdalene laundries and forgetting to provide either wages or front door keys.

    My point was intended to highlight and explain the difference between "and" and "or", but anyway.........


  • #56
    aare
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭aare


    Deleted User wrote: »
    My point was intended to highlight and explain the difference between "and" and "or", but anyway.........

    Ah but that point needs all the insurance against misunderstanding it can get.

    They have quite sophisticated expertise in using stigmatization as a weapon to...mostly to scare sex workers away from speaking out...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement