Criminalising purchase but not sale of sex - Sexual Offences Bill 2015

Pat Mustard

See here:

The Sexual Offences Bill going through the Dail this week will decriminalise the sale of sex, but criminalise the purchase of sex. It’s the so-called Nordic Model which is supposed to protect prostitutes but make criminals of their clients. But sex workers object to the proposal, some say the Nordic Model has failed and others that sex should be traded legally, if that’s what consenting adults in a liberal society want to do. But if it’s all so egalitarian, why is it only men who want to buy sex?

And here:

Bill entitled an Act to to give effect to Directive No. 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA, for that purpose to amend certain enactments; to amend the Punishment of Incest Act 1908; to amend the Criminal Evidence Act 1992; to repeal the Criminal Law (Incest Proceedings) Act 1995; to amend the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006; to provide for offences relating to payment for sexual activity with prostitutes, offensive conduct of a sexual nature and harassment of victims of sexual offences and to provide for related matters

There has been some discussion of this previously but not recently.

It looks like this is going ahead. Buying sex from trafficked individuals has already been made an offence in this country. Otherwise, of itself, buying sex has not been illegal in this country already. This proposed new law will change that. It is noteworthy that the sale of sex by a prostitute will not be outlawed.

It is interesting that the Newstalk article states that the Nordic model (of criminalising the purchase but not the sale) has not worked. Is this the case?

I am not very familiar with how this has operated in other countries but I find it interesting that the law is now being changed to criminalise the actions of one of the parties to the transaction but not the other.

There are arguments that the prostitute is not in a position of power and can easily be abused or attacked. There are arguments that criminalising these behaviours will drive it further underground, further disenfranchising prostitutes. There are arguments that the answer lies in regulation rather than prohibition.

The bill has not yet been enacted into law but that time approaches now.

What do people think?

Eric Cartman

I think this is yet another 'wrap women in cotton wool, we can't arrest them, they just made a mistake' law.

We have a huge mantra from the same sides of the political fence saying "don't arrest drug users, go after the dealers, they're the real problem" There is no difference.

These women (remember we're excluding the trafficked ones) have made a choice to get involved in an illegal (i don't understand why it is, but thats another topic for another day) trade and as such the responsibility legally should fall on them as the supplier of the service.

smacl

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I am not very familiar with how this has operated in other countries but I find it interesting that the law is now being changed to criminalise the actions of one of the parties to the transaction but not the other

It seems bizarre that you have something that is legal to sell but illegal to buy. Surely the prostitute in this instance is inciting her punter to commit an offence, which logically would also constitute an offence?

Trying to imagine what the reaction would be for similar treatment of another illegal service, e.g. hit man, or goods, e.g. cocaine

Dr Jakub

It won't achieve a damn thing. When will the feminists realise they cannot engineer human society to their own agenda?

Tigger

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think this is yet another 'wrap women in cotton wool, we can't arrest them, they just made a mistake' law.

We have a huge mantra from the same sides of the political fence saying "don't arrest drug users, go after the dealers, they're the real problem" There is no difference.

These women (remember we're excluding the trafficked ones) have made a choice to get involved in an illegal (i don't understand why it is, but thats another topic for another day) trade and as such the responsibility legally should fall on them as the supplier of the service.

does it not apply to men who sell themselves as well?
although apart from that i agree with you

ligerdub

I think of the old accounting phrase, "debit the receiver, credit the giver" :-)

I don't think there's anything more to it than a new tactic to deal with the issue. There are similar cases in drug dealing where some countries punish the dealer, some the user, and most both. I think the application is more a philosophical "which one will reduce the number of incidents?" strategy.

From my own point of view I'm not sure how giving carte blanche to those willing to sell illicit goods or services will help things. If anything it's going to increase supply. Is going hard on the user going to decrease demand? Actually maybe it would.

Of course there is another argument when you just legitimise everything and regulate it. Never going to happen here!

Tigger

ligerdub wrote: »

I think of the old accounting phrase, "debit the receiver, credit the giver" :-)

I don't think there's anything more to it than a new tactic to deal with the issue. There are similar cases in drug dealing where some countries punish the dealer, some the user, and most both. I think the application is more a philosophical "which one will reduce the number of incidents?" strategy.

From my own point of view I'm not sure how giving carte blanche to those willing to sell illicit goods or services will help things. If anything it's going to increase supply. Is going hard on the user going to decrease demand? Actually maybe it would.

Of course there is another argument when you just legitimise everything and regulate it. Never going to happen here!

re the drug thing, where do they punish the the user but not the dealer

smacl

smacl wrote: »

It seems bizarre that you have something that is legal to sell but illegal to buy. Surely the prostitute in this instance is inciting her punter to commit an offence, which logically would also constitute an offence?

Trying to imagine what the reaction would be for similar treatment of another illegal service, e.g. hit man, or goods, e.g. cocaine

The thinking is that a prostitute who has been harmed by a punter during the course of her - or his - business will not report it if it could result in their arrest for the sale of sex. Its to address the heightened risk of assault and rape that sex workers run into.

Whatever about criminalizing the purchase of sex, there is some merit to not criminalizing the sale for that reason. It's of more benefit to society in general to prosecute people who would rape or assault than those who sell sex.

I'm not sure there is any benefit to society to criminalize the purchase either, fwiw.

Tigger

Candie wrote: »

The thinking is that a prostitute who has been harmed by a punter during the course of her - or his - business will not report it if it could result in their arrest for the sale of sex. Its to address the heightened risk of assault and rape that sex workers run into.

Whatever about criminalizing the purchase of sex, there is some merit to not criminalizing the sale for that reason. It's of more benefit to society in general to prosecute people who would rape or assault than those who sell sex.

I'm not sure there is any benefit to society to criminalize the purchase either, fwiw.

exactly
they don't want to legalise sex for sale (ignore trafficking that's slavery) but they see that the women are being made vulnerable due to fear of going to the Guards so this has been accepted as the compromise.
i just don't get the logic, if its legal for people to sell themselves then that should be that. do thew realise tinder etc are full of prostitution i wonder or are they living in a world where beaten women still walk the streets.

ligerdub

Tigger wrote: »

re the drug thing, where do they punish the the user but not the dealer

Honestly I can't recall. I remember it was discussed as part of a lecture I attended years ago about a 2 x 2 matrix of some description kind of like the prisoners dilemma scenario. They explained various jurisdictions of where each was applied.

Tigger

ligerdub wrote: »

Honestly I can't recall. I remember it was discussed as part of a lecture I attended years ago about a 2 x 2 matrix of some description kind of like the prisoners dilemma scenario. They explained various jurisdictions of where each was applied.

Sounds unlikely but who knows
I'd love to see that in action
Cop: hey you is that drugs in your hand
Tigger: yeah it's ok I'm a dealer
Cop: that's ok if any of your customers are mean to you you should call me here is my card
Tigger : gobbles all the yummy narcotics
Tigger : burp

ligerdub

Tigger wrote: »

Sounds unlikely but who knows
I'd love to see that in action
Cop: hey you is that drugs in your hand
Tigger: yeah it's ok I'm a dealer
Cop: that's ok if any of your customers are mean to you you should call me here is my card
Tigger : gobbles all the yummy narcotics
Tigger : burp

Ha!

No it wasn't quite like that. The dealer was still punished, but the level of severity was about on a par with the user. In reality it just meant a more severe punishment for the user than normal.

One_Of_Shanks

It should be illegal to sell or buy sex. Simple as that. It's not a commodity.

Both should be equally treated and equally punished.

Doing one without the other is half-arsed nonsense but as a nation we're brilliant at that anyway.
So why am I surprised.

hannible the cannible

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

It should be illegal to sell or buy sex. Simple as that. It's not a commodity.

Both should be equally treated and equally punished.

Doing one without the other is half-arsed nonsense but as a nation we're brilliant at that anyway.
So why am I surprised.

Exactly, Anyone should be allowed pay for the persons company and time and whatever happens after that is purely between 2 consenting adults

Tigger

ligerdub wrote: »

Ha!

No it wasn't quite like that. The dealer was still punished, but the level of severity was about on a par with the user. In reality it just meant a more severe punishment for the user than normal.

see that makes sense
if selling a thing is a crime make both the seller and the purchaser equally responsible for their terrible act.


women (i know nothing about male sexuality except my own and while my younger self would have loved to sell himself to relatively attractive older women i believe that's not how it works) selling themselves is strange one
i was popular enough in college but a German studentl once tried to sell me sex, i thought she was coming on to me so i said "no but sure we could go out" she was not joking, i have no idea how hard up she was and i worked through college so i had few quid. i didn't spread this around but i wonder how many of my peers said yes. another girl i was dating "(shagging) said she wanted to go to London and get paid for sex for a year and that she could save up and buy an opel corsa (youth has such simple dreams) but she really liked sex and she reckoned as long as they wern't "wierdos" it would be easy money.

that was 20 years ago but as i alluded to before my friends have reported back and told me that tinder etc are a plethora of young women exchanging sex for money or gifts and if the women love it and the fellas play fair where is the harm

ligerdub

hannible the cannible wrote: »

Exactly, Anyone should be allowed pay for the persons company and time and whatever happens after that is purely between 2 consenting adults

No that's not what he said. :P

Tigger

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

It should be illegal to sell or buy sex. Simple as that. It's not a commodity.

Both should be equally treated and equally punished.

Doing one without the other is half-arsed nonsense but as a nation we're brilliant at that anyway.
So why am I surprised.

hannible the cannible wrote: »

Exactly, Anyone should be allowed pay for the persons company and time and whatever happens after that is purely between 2 consenting adults

????

Tigger

ligerdub wrote: »

No that's not what he said. :P

i thought it was just me :P

Tigger

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

It should be illegal to sell or buy sex. Simple as that. It's not a commodity.

Both should be equally treated and equally punished.

Doing one without the other is half-arsed nonsense but as a nation we're brilliant at that anyway.
So why am I surprised.

why should it be illegal
it is a commodity btw its the most sought out commodity in the world
its the drive to the reason of life , its hard wired into us and i think denying that drive causes loads of problems

Pat Mustard

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

It should be illegal to sell or buy sex. Simple as that. It's not a commodity.

Both should be equally treated and equally punished.

Doing one without the other is half-arsed nonsense but as a nation we're brilliant at that anyway.
So why am I surprised.

In the ordinary course of events, if adults have consensual sex, no crime is committed.

So, leaving aside trafficked individuals, why do you say that consensual sex should be outlawed just because money changes hands?

What social good is served if anybody is punished?

professore

This is a purely feminist driven move. If they want to outlaw prostitution, fine - but make it illegal for both parties involved. Also make adultery illegal, with similar punishments for women who marry wealthy men and then cheat on them. Also make it illegal to have a ONS if any benefit in kind is received. And make it a mandatory 10 year sentence for paternity fraud.

Tigger

Pat Mustard wrote: »

In the ordinary course of events, if adults have consensual sex, no crime is committed.

So, leaving aside trafficked individuals, why do you say that consensual sex should be outlawed just because money changes hands?

What social good is served if anybody is punished?

i was just musing on this
jeudo christianity: god said go forth and multiply so as i said its hard wired into us the have sex and multiply (obviuiously the ability to relieve that drive without having kids is as nice as the ability to have steak without cooking it or having to hunt doen the girraffe)
also i dont think the ten commandments (the pillar of the faith) say not to have loads of sex or sex for money
sure they say no aduyltery but i thought adultery was fvcuking elses someone or fcuking someone who wasnt your someone
i think puratinacal messages got mixed in

sdo why on earth do we have an issue with free people (not trafficked slaves) selling themselves

Tigger

professore wrote: »

This is a purely feminist driven move.

i'd say they are involved but the christians are also in there

If they want to outlaw prostitution, fine - but make it illegal for both parties involved.

not fine but at least its fair and equal

Also make adultery illegal, with similar punishments for women who marry wealthy men and then cheat on them. Also make it illegal to have a ONS if any benefit in kind is received. And make it a mandatory 10 year sentence for paternity fraud.

you sir have jumped the proverbial shark

and paternitity fraud is nonsense these days with the testing and what not

Pat Mustard

Tigger wrote: »

sdo why on earth do we have an issue with free people (not trafficked slaves) selling themselves

I agree.

professore wrote: »

This is a purely feminist driven move. If they want to outlaw prostitution, fine - but make it illegal for both parties involved. Also make adultery illegal, with similar punishments for women who marry wealthy men and then cheat on them. Also make it illegal to have a ONS if any benefit in kind is received. And make it a mandatory 10 year sentence for paternity fraud.

You argue that the law should be even handed: that if the law is made unfair for one party, it should be made equally unfair for the other party.

But if the law treats each party to the transaction equally unfairly, does that equate to fairness?

Is equal treatment fair?

Tigger

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You argue that the law should be even handed: that if the law is made unfair for one party, it should be made equally unfair for the other party.

But if the law treats each party to the transaction equally unfairly, does that equate to fairness?

Is equal treatment fair?

no equality isn't fairness its equality
however inequality is often unfairness

One_Of_Shanks

Tigger wrote: »

why should it be illegal
it is a commodity btw its the most sought out commodity in the world
its the drive to the reason of life , its hard wired into us and i think denying that drive causes loads of problems

No, it's not a commodity. As for reason of life? What does that mean?

Right, it WAS a commodity about 100 years ago.

Wikipedia: A commodity is a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee.

Such as copper or coffee.

That's pretty much it. You consider sex to be a product to buy like coffee?
Weird way of looking at things.
Any opinions on black people? They used to get sold in the same way.

Do you ever stop and think how do these prostitutes feel? Someone alarmingly said earlier that this new law is "wrapping women up in cotton wool".
Not sure if that was you but what a shocking thing to say.
If any woman ends up in this position then they're chronically short of any other option and probably selling their bodies to help their kids.
It's end of the line crap for them and most money goes to the guy in charge.

I could have replied to any other comment on here but you went out of your way to quote me and then throw a load of question marks at another fella who mistakenly took my post the wrong way so you seem quite passionate about the subject.

No offence but if you applied this much passion to actually meeting a woman in reality then you could probably find someone who would like you for who you are.
Instead of promoting prostitution.

Tigger

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

No, it's not a commodity. As for reason of life? What does that mean?

Right, it WAS a commodity about 100 years ago.

Wikipedia: A commodity is a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee.

Such as copper or coffee.

That's pretty much it. You consider sex to be a product to buy like coffee?
Weird way of looking at things.
Any opinions on black people? They used to get sold in the same way.

Do you ever stop and think how do these prostitutes feel? Someone alarmingly said earlier that this new law is "wrapping women up in cotton wool".
Not sure if that was you but what a shocking thing to say.
If any woman ends up in this position then they're chronically short of any other option and probably selling their bodies to help their kids.
It's end of the line crap for them and most money goes to the guy in charge.

I could have replied to any other comment on here but you went out of your way to quote me and then throw a load of question marks at another fella who mistakenly took my post the wrong way so you seem quite passionate about the subject.

No offence but if you applied this much passion to actually meeting a woman in reality then you could probably find someone who would like you for who you are.
Instead of promoting prostitution.

I e been very clear that trafficked prostitutes are slaves but women or men who choose to sell them selves are not
I have never availed of a prostitute and unless my life was to take a huge 180 I will never but that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to my opinion. I also will never have an abortion nor will I want any sexual partner to have one but I still have an opinion on abortion
You are horribly wrong in thinking that women have pimpsx maybe some do but the majority operate online and while they may use bodyguards the Internet has changed how these things (as it has a lot of things ) operate

One_Of_Shanks

Tigger wrote: »

I e been very clear that trafficked prostitutes are slaves but women or men who choose to sell them selves are not
I have never availed of a prostitute and unless my life was to take a huge 180 I will never but that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to my opinion. I also will never have an abortion nor will I want any sexual partner to have one but I still have an opinion on abortion
You are horribly wrong in thinking that women have pimpsx maybe some do but the majority operate online and while they may use bodyguards the Internet has changed how these things (as it has a lot of things ) operate

So trafficked prostitutes are not ok but the non-trafficked ones are fine?
Quick question..... How do you know which are which? Do they come with labels? (yeah I'm being a bit sarcastic but you can see my point)

Also you said : you are horribly wrong in thinking that women have pimps but maybe some do.
And those who do have bodyguards.

So there's no real need for me to reply there.
Not being funny but we'll leave it at that.
All the best.

Tigger

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

So trafficked prostitutes are not ok but the non-trafficked ones are fine?
Quick question..... How do you know which are which? Do they come with labels? (yeah I'm being a bit sarcastic but you can see my point)

Also you said : you are horribly wrong in thinking that women have pimps but maybe some do.
And those who do have bodyguards.

So there's no real need for me to reply there.
Not being funny but we'll leave it at that.
All the best.

That's not what I said it's written there and easier to copy and paste than reword

Olishi4

Pat Mustard wrote: »

In the ordinary course of events, if adults have consensual sex, no crime is committed.

So, leaving aside trafficked individuals, why do you say that consensual sex should be outlawed just because money changes hands?

What social good is served if anybody is punished?

If sex work is legal for both the sex worker and the client then it's basically the selling of sexual consent by inciting the sex worker to have sex for money otherwise they would consent for free. Is sexual consent something that should be a commodity? Is that the message that should be sent through our laws or lack of?

If it is illegal for both parties, then if there is abuse, the sex worker will not likely report it because they would be arrested.

Sex work will happen anyway regardless of the law but by making it illegal for the client, it could act as a deterrent but also gives the sex worker somewhere to go for help if they are being abused.

Wanderer78

Ah I'm sure it'll work perfectly, just like our drug laws!

Tigger

Olishi4 wrote: »

If sex work is legal for both the sex worker and the client then it's basically the selling of sexual consent by inciting the sex worker to have sex for money otherwise they would consent for free. Is sexual consent something that should be a commodity? Is that the message that should be sent through our laws or lack of?

If it is illegal for both parties, then if there is abuse, the sex worker will not likely report it because they would be arrested.

Sex work will happen anyway regardless of the law but by making it illegal for the client, it could act as a deterrent but also gives the sex worker somewhere to go for help if they are being abused.

Ok assuming your model makes sense what about income tax. If the sex worker is making money shouldn't they have to declare it to revenue
And to the social welfare or is that a breach of their rights

We should be legalising, registering, and taxing brothels. This is the way to tackle trafficing and ensuring that transactions between adults are freely made.

Instead this politically correct nonsense will just push the problem further underground, tie up garda resources and criminalise adults who have no reason to get involved with the justice system.

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote:

This is a purely feminist driven move. If they want to outlaw prostitution, fine - but make it illegal for both parties involved. Also make adultery illegal, with similar punishments for women who marry wealthy men and then cheat on them. Also make it illegal to have a ONS if any benefit in kind is received. And make it a mandatory 10 year sentence for paternity fraud.

This is a very strange strawman. Why would criminalising sex as a commodity, also make adultery illegal? How are the 2 ideas connected in your mind

Pat Mustard

Olishi4 wrote: »

Sex work will happen anyway regardless of the law but by making it illegal for the client, it could act as a deterrent but also gives the sex worker somewhere to go for help if they are being abused.

I see your point about giving the prostitute/sex worker an opportunity to complain. However, why not simply regulate the business and allow both buyer and seller to complain about whatever they want?

Olishi4 wrote: »

If sex work is legal for both the sex worker and the client then it's basically the selling of sexual consent by inciting the sex worker to have sex for money otherwise they would consent for free. Is sexual consent something that should be a commodity? Is that the message that should be sent through our laws or lack of?

If sex is being freely exchanged for money, then consent is not an issue. Why should there be an objection to the purchase of sex?

El_Duderino 09

I think most people agree that prostitution should be legal and regulated but that isn't likely to happen for political reasons

In the mean time you have to use the law to deal with it. The law is about fairness and protecting people from harm.

The street hooker/punter relationship is not equal by its nature. We all know that rape is often about power rather than sex. And we all know that sexual deviants exist. Imagine creating a whole class of people that can't go to the police even if they were raped by a psychopath. It's a sexual deviants dream scenario.

He ideal is to test people fairly, failing that you can use legislation to minimise harm. As a stopgap measure this law will at least protect the sex worker in a way they weren't protected before.

Is it strictly equal? No. Is it ideal? No. It takes the sex worker out of the position of being unable to go to the police if they're abused. That's positive at least

El_Duderino 09

Olishi4 wrote:

If sex work is legal for both the sex worker and the client then it's basically the selling of sexual consent by inciting the sex worker to have sex for money otherwise they would consent for free. Is sexual consent something that should be a commodity? Is that the message that should be sent through our laws or lack of?

You can consent to certain things and not to others. You can also withdraw consent.

Do prostitutes sell consent or do they sell sexual services? As long as you acknowledge the right to agree the service being traded and the right to withdraw consent , then it probably doesn't matter too much what exactly is being traded

lazybones32

Dr Jakub wrote: »

It won't achieve a damn thing. When will the feminists realise they cannot engineer human society to their own agenda?

The feminists are engineering Society to suit their agenda...they've got the Bill going to the Dail. This was proposed a few years ago by the ICI, Ruhama and a few other publicly funded groups. Such a change brought about by a minority.

It'll be interesting to see who backs and who opposes this.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Imagine creating a whole class of people that can't go to the police even if they were raped by a psychopath. It's a sexual deviants dream scenario.

Do you suggest that prostitutes in this country cannot complain to police already?

Please explain your exact position.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Please explain your exact position.

If selling sex is illegal, then it complicates reporting a crime like being raped/assaulted whilst also engaging in an illegal activity - selling sex.

Does that answer your question?

lazybones32

I think Americans can circumvent the soliciting offence by having a video camera/recording device with them, saying that they were making a porno movie. Producing adult films is illegal here, isn't it?...

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If selling sex is illegal, then it complicates reporting a crime like being raped/assaulted whilst also engaging in an illegal activity - selling sex.

Does that answer your question?

No, it does not answer the question. It is not illegal to sell sex in this country.

I will ask you again: do you suggest that prostitutes in this country cannot complain to police already?

Please explain your exact position.

A simple yes or no would suffice.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

No, it does not answer the question. It is not illegal to sell sex in this country.

What's the story with it? I thought there was a kind of loophole where a prostitute could work from a fixed location, on their own, in an 'escort' capacity. Street pristitution is illegal and any kind of working together as prostitutes or coordinating as in a brothel is illegal. Is that the way it works? This is me asking you because I'm not expert in the legality of prostitution in Ireland.

Olishi4

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I see your point about giving the prostitute/sex worker an opportunity to complain. However, why not simply regulate the business and allow both buyer and seller to complain about whatever they want?


If sex is being freely exchanged for money, then consent is not an issue. Why should there be an objection to the purchase of sex?

Well with regard to sex, two consenting adults is two people who want to be intimate but with sex work it is one party that wants to be intimate and it is the consent that is purchased. The consent is only changed with the introduction of money.

IMO, the majority of sex workers do not enjoy the act of sex with a client and sex and sexuality are very complex and what are the long term effects of that for their personal life, career etc? I also don't believe that it has a good effect on the client. It can't do too much for your self esteem to pay someone to pretend to be attracted to you. IMO a client who is frequently seeing sex workers is experiencing sexual rejection even if sex actually goes ahead.

If it is a case where a sex worker enjoys the sex with the client then I think that is rare and if that is the case, I don't think the law needs to facilitate that. They can find other ways to fulfil that fantasy. The law should be there to protect people who are negatively impacted.

I honestly don't know what is the right answer but I'm can see where they are coming from with the idea presented in the op.

ligerdub

Olishi4 wrote: »

If sex work is legal for both the sex worker and the client then it's basically the selling of sexual consent by inciting the sex worker to have sex for money otherwise they would consent for free. Is sexual consent something that should be a commodity? Is that the message that should be sent through our laws or lack of?

Sentence 1: Maybe yes, maybe no. The money cements the agreement. A is willing to do a deal for XXX, B is willing to give XXX.

Sentence 2: They are going out with the purpose/goal of doing just that for a fee they are willing to do it for.

Sentence 3: Well that's the discussion really, and pretty much the same question as sentence 2.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What's the story with it? I thought there was a kind of loophole where a prostitute could work from a fixed location, on their own, in an 'escort' capacity. Street pristitution is illegal and any kind of working together as prostitutes or coordinating as in a brothel is illegal. Is that the way it works? This is me asking you because I'm not expert in the legality of prostitution in Ireland.

Are you going to answer the question or are you going to shadow box around it?

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Are you going to answer the question or are you going to shadow box around it?

Some pristitution is illegal and other pristitution isn't illegal. As far as I know.

eviltwin

There should be no charges on anyone, client or prostitute. Obvious exception for those hiring underage or prostitutes forced into it. But what two people choose to do with regards to a possible payment is up to them. I'd like to see proper regulation of the industry with safety and security of the sex workers a priority. I'd also like to see the stigma of sex work disappear, I hate seeing these women treated by society as shameful or disgusting.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Are you going to answer the question or are you going to shadow box around it?

I've already said I don't know for certain. Do you know? Will you set share your knowledge?

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've already said I don't know for certain. Do you know? Will you set share your knowledge?

Solicitation in a public place is illegal.

Brothel keeping and pimping are illegal.

Sale of sex is not illegal.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Solicitation in a public place is illegal.
Brothel keeping and pimping are illegal.
Sale of sex is not illegal.

Thanks for clarifying

Now that were agreed on the terms being used what was your issue with the paragraph below?

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

The street hooker/punter relationship is not equal by its nature. We all know that rape is often about power rather than sex. And we all know that sexual deviants exist. Imagine creating a whole class of people that can't go to the police even if they were raped by a psychopath. It's a sexual deviants dream scenario.

People who solicit sex in publuc are breaking the law. That complicates the issue of reporting crimes against them such as rape and assault. Right?