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

Pat Mustard

Your method of argument is among the most slippery and dishonest methods that I have encountered. You have refused to nail your colours to the mast, all the while trying to distract with questions about this and that.

What I asked earlier is here:

Pat Mustard wrote: »

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

Please explain your exact position.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Your method of argument is among the most slippery and dishonest methods that I have encountered. You have refused to nail your colours to the mast, all the while trying to distract with questions about this and that.

Slippery? What do you want to know?

You asked for my position. I stated a position. You challenged it and as a result we nailed down the more accurate position (solicitation is illegal rather than prostitution as a whole). Somehow you have a problem with that.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

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?

Is the statement above accurate or not?

Pat Mustard

Just answer the question, please.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Just answer the question, please.

I answered my it. You clarified it.

The most accurate way to say it is that some prostitutes are engaging in illegal activity.

If this doesn't answer the question, will you clarify the question?

El_Duderino 09

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.

This is my position. Why do you keep saying i won't 'nail my colours to the mast'. Here it is. You want to discuss some point of law that I've already told you I'm not sure about so you clarified it.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The most accurate way to say it is that some prostitutes are engaging in illegal activity.

Do you have evidence to back this up?

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Do you have evidence to back this up?

First of a does it a deer your question?
Secondly,
What are you on about?

Pat Mustard wrote:

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

A prostitute who is soliciting in the street or working in a brothel is engaging in illegal activity. A prostitute who sells sex without those conditions isn't doing something illegal.

You said so yourself but you want a source when I say it. And I'm the one with a strange discussion style?

El_Duderino 09

Read 'answer' for deer.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The most accurate way to say it is that some prostitutes are engaging in illegal activity.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Do you have evidence to back this up?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What are you on about?

Do you have evidence that "some prostitutes are engaging in illegal activity"?

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Do you have evidence that "some prostitutes are engaging in illegal activity"?

Street hookers are engaging in illegal activity. What kind of evidence do you want?

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Do you have evidence that "some prostitutes are engaging in illegal activity"?

You're pursuing this point as if you know so etching I don't. Will you just tell me to save this ping pong?

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Street hookers are engaging in illegal activity. What kind of evidence do you want?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're pursuing this point as if you know so etching I don't. Will you just tell me to save this ping pong?

I'm asking you for evidence that "some prostitutes are engaging in illegal activity".

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

I'm asking you for evidence that "some prostitutes are engaging in illegal activity".

What would serve as evidence to meet your standard or evidence?

If you know something you could just tell me. Some lads are very sensitive about being wrong. If prefer of you just told me if I'm wrong and no prostitutes are engaging in illegal activity. You're boring the tits off me.

Pat Mustard

It's like pulling teeth, asking you questions after you try to dodge those questions time and again. You won't back up your own statements.

As regards evidence, can you even link to one newspaper article where a prostitute has got convicted for solicitation in this country, in recent times?

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

As regards evidence, can you even link to one newspaper article where a prostitute has got convicted for solicitation in this country, in recent times?

I can't link because I'm on the phone.

Google: Garda arrested prostitute, and later he went back and had sex with her

It's the heading of an Irish independent article.

From the article: 'The two women were prosecuted and fined after admitting prostitution offences'.

You're welcome

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're welcome

Thanks for nothing.

Link

The first complainant's statement said that she felt compelled to have sexual intercourse with the garda concerned because he was a member of An Garda Siochána involved in a prosecution which led to her conviction for an offence under s.11 of the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act 1993 and she feared further prosecution. Evidence showed that the garda had been involved in the prosecution of the two women.

Section 11 is brothel keeping.

This isn't sale of sex, it isn't solicitation. It's Brothel keeping, ffs

You don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about. All of your statements, arguments, dodging questions, complaints about having the tits bored off you, is complete and utter nonsense.

It's a waste of time attempting to debate with you.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

This isn't sale of sex, it isn't solicitation. It's Brothel keeping, ffs

This is the paragraph you took exception to, remember?

I was talking about sex workers who can't go to the police. You want to make it specific to solicitation but that's not necessary for my point.

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.

Pat Mustard wrote:

You don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about. All of your statements, arguments, dodging questions, complaints about having the tits bored off you, is complete and utter nonsense.

I told you a few times that I wasn't expert. I asked you to share your knowledge and after a lot of coaxing, you did. You won't understand this but I'm actually grateful for the information. Not sure who you took so long to share it.

Now would you tell me how this new knowledge we both have, relates to the point I was making to begin with? Having a vulnerable section of society that could be prosecuted if they report a rape, (the women in the article are a perfect example).

Tigger

Olishi4 wrote: »

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.

should they have to register as self employed?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ligerdub

Some sex workers don't enjoy their job, so just like 95% of the population then.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now would you tell me how this new knowledge we both have, relates to the point I was making to begin with? Having a vulnerable section of society that could be prosecuted if they report a rape, (the women in the article are a perfect example).

Rubbish.

You have been unable to back up any point over several pages of the thread.

Originally, you suggested that prostitutes could not complain to police due to 'complications'. When pressed repeatedly on this, you eventually offered that street hookers were engaged in illegal activity. Several times, you were asked for evidence of this illegal activity that you claimed. Eventually, you claimed that you were bored.

Now you have seized on to brothel keeping as the next reason for prostitutes not being able to go to the police. These vulnerable prostitutes who are simultaneously pimps must be the player-managers of the sex trade. Indeed, it will be interesting to see which section of the legislation will deal with protection of these vulnerable pimp/brothel keeper player-managers.

Subsequently, you posted an ostensible request for directions (quoted above) as to how this prostitute/pimp/brothel keeper notion might relate back to your original point.

There is a reason that you are having difficulties in joining the dots.

Here comes the clue train; last stop, you.

You don't have a point. You don't have an argument. You can't back up what you say.

It's rubbish.

professore

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I agree.


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?

Yes I believe so. It's not ideal, but it's better than blatantly discriminating against one party in any event.

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

Adultery is morally wrong, just as prostitution between two consenting adults is. Buying sex from a trafficked prostitute is already a crime, as is rape and pimping, so the only thing left is a moral issue which is being made into a legal one. So if you are going to legislate on moral issues you might as well go the whole hog.

Edit: Morals are of course relative - look at Saudi Arabia if you want to take this to it's logical conclusion.

professore

Also, if this is to be enforced, the net effect will be more Garda surveillance of prostitutes. Lonely men who can't get laid occasionally will commit suicide instead, or end up with criminal convictions for the "crime" of wanting some female company. Some male depression would be greatly helped by a nice chat and a good shag every so often from a female who actually is nice to these unfortunate individuals. Instead they are made feel guilty about their sexual desires in the same way gay men and women were in the past, and medicated for it with antidepressants.

Normal well adjusted men in healthy relationships or even single with some sort of sex life (the vast majority) will not want to see prostitutes.

The best solution is full legalisation with a professional body of independent sex workers that provide a framework to operate safely and pay taxes.

Even Amnesty International supports decriminalisation : http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/world/europe/amnesty-international-weighs-decriminalization-of-prostitution.html?_r=0

This is the mature and adult way to legislate.

Olishi4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The basis IMO is that in the majority of cases, it is unhealthy for both parties and its not something we need in modern society.

Are you saying that sex work should be considered the answer or a handy number for struggling single mothers and people who can't afford to pay for their education?

Olishi4

Tigger wrote: »

should they have to register as self employed?

I don't know Tigger. Do many of them register now under the current legislation?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ligerdub

Olishi4 wrote: »

The basis IMO is that in the majority of cases, it is unhealthy for both parties and its not something we need in modern society.

Are you saying that sex work should be considered the answer or a handy number for struggling single mothers and people who can't afford to pay for their education?

I'd be interested in seeing the results of you doing a verbal reasoning test. My reading of the quote was that while there were certain negatives to the job, the women doing it were not negative about the job overall.

It's funny, when it comes to people demanding some professions to be banned it rarely comes from people ever employed, past or present, in those roles. In many cases these protestors are hated by those they think they are representing.

Olishi4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No one has a job where it requires them to binge drink, smoke etc. Not that I know of.

Where legislated, it can give more power to pimps. Like I said, imo it is unhealthy it sends the message that thats ok and who cares if it causes emotional distress. Tough luck, it was your own choice.

I didn't say that it would make it cease to exist. I said I understand the thought process behind the new law.

Here's some more UK facts.

In 2009 there were over 60000 sex workers in the UK who had an average of 25 clients a week paying an average of almost 70 pounds.

50 percent started before they turned 18 and 95 percent of street workers are drug addicts.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-32539648

Dravokivich

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.

It's actually over whelming simple, until the matters linked in the op come into play.

Solicitantion is illegal, doesn't matter if it's from a street, apartment or hotel room. More than 1 sex worker at an address is considered brothel keeling, which is also illegal.

Tigger

Olishi4 wrote: »

I don't know Tigger. Do many of them register now under the current legislation?

No they don't, i'm asking if they should?

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Originally, you suggested that prostitutes could not complain to police due to 'complications'. When pressed repeatedly on this, you eventually offered that street hookers were engaged in illegal activity. Several times, you were asked for evidence of this illegal activity that you claimed. Eventually, you claimed that you were bored.

Now you have seized on to brothel keeping as the next reason for prostitutes not being able to go to the police. These vulnerable prostitutes who are simultaneously pimps must be the player-managers of the sex trade. Indeed, it will be interesting to see which section of the legislation will deal with protection of these vulnerable pimp/brothel keeper player-managers.

It doesn't matter to me which parts are illegal. The fact that selling sex is legal is a bit irrelevant considering that the activities associated with it are illegal. Such as solicitation in public or brothel work. That complicates going o the police to report crimes against them. The women in the article are an example of that.

Pat Mustard wrote:

Here comes the clue train; last stop, you.

You don't have a point. You don't have an argument. You can't back up what you say.

It's rubbish.

Jaysus Pat, you're getting awful hot and bothered about this small tangential point.

El_Duderino 09

ligerdub wrote:

Some sex workers don't enjoy their job, so just like 95% of the population then.

Most people don't enjoy their job fair enough, but most people have a negligible chance of being beaten or raped during their day's work. There is significantly higher for sex workers.

It's a dreadful system that would prefer to have sex workers be vulnerable, working in the hidden economy and outside that law, than face up to it and regulate it.

ligerdub

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Most people don't enjoy their job fair enough, but most people have a negligible chance of being beaten or raped during their day's work. There is significantly higher for sex workers.

It's a dreadful system that would prefer to have sex workers be vulnerable, working in the hidden economy and outside that law, than face up to it and regulate it.

Yes, absolutely.

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote:

Adultery is morally wrong, just as prostitution between two consenting adults is. Buying sex from a trafficked prostitute is already a crime, as is rape and pimping, so the only thing left is a moral issue which is being made into a legal one. So if you are going to legislate on moral issues you might as well go the whole hog. Edit: Morals are of course relative - look at Saudi Arabia if you want to take this to it's logical conclusion.

Oh so it's just a moral conclusion? That's about as much use as personal opinion. Stating a moral conclusion without any argument for why you reach that conclusion is a bit of a non starter.

nozzferrahhtoo

News Talk wrote: »

But if it’s all so egalitarian, why is it only men who want to buy sex?

Usually my habit when I see a "Why is it?" question is to first ask "Is it?". And I have not see that the "Is it" here has been established at all.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

What do people think?

I think that criminalizing the sale of sex is a bad idea entirely and I have yet to see a good argument for it. What we usually get is..........

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.

..... declarations by fiat but no actual arguments as to why it should be so. It should be illegal because..... well just because! And quite often when such people declare their position to be "simple" what it appears they actually mean is "simplistic". An easy linguistic mistake to make.

I am not even sure what we mean here by "not a commodity". How is it not? Or what relevance does that even have?

I just looked in a dictionary for the definition of commodity and the first one was "a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee." which clearly sex is not. But who said it needs to be?

The second definition is "a useful or valuable thing.". Do you not think sex useful or valuable? I genuinely do not see where you are going with the "it is not a commodity" comment therefore.

Perhaps the word commodity is not a good one for you then. What we have is a world of "goods and services" and I would see the sale of sex as the latter. So what if it is not a commodity. What IS it? A service?

What is, say, massage? Massage is the application of parts of the body of the provider to the person of the customer in order to achieve desirable or desired physical results. A service.

What is the sale of sex? Could it possibly be the application of parts of the body of the provider to the person of the customer in order to achieve desirable or desirable physical results? A service maybe?

So sex is not a commodity? Is massage therefore not a commodity? Why does it not therefore also fall under your ire? Is it solely because subjectively one is elevated in your mind over the other? Or is there some rational basis for what is otherwise a victim-less crime that you are withholding pending questioning?

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

That's pretty much it. You consider sex to be a product to buy like coffee? Weird way of looking at things.

Yes seeing the world as "goods" rather than "goods AND services" is indeed a weird way of looking at things. One I would urge you to divest yourself of.

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Any opinions on black people? They used to get sold in the same way.

Errrrr no that is a horrifically poor analogy and is not "the same way" at all. There is a MASSIVE chasm of difference between being sold against your will as a slave, and selling services of your own free choice. Weird way of looking at things indeed.

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Do you ever stop and think how do these prostitutes feel?

Do we ever when purchasing a good or service? How many people genuinely stop to think how the person handing them their McDonalds feels? Or how a masseuse feels?

When a country wages war do we stop to think how the soldiers feel? When we buy a vegetable at Lidl rather than Marks And Spencer because it is much cheaper, do we stop to think how the farmer feels at having his bottom line forced down?

Stopping to think how the people providing us with our goods and services in general is not something we are often good at. But many of us DO try and source our products as ethically as possible when we do think about it. And especially when the industry gives us the information and choices to do so.

So thinking how people feel IN GENERAL is something I would strongly advice all to do.

But sex workers SPECIFICALLY? No, I see no reason to stop and think how they feel more than I would anyone else providing a good or a service of their own volition. Nor, I note, have you provided one as to why I should or might.

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

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.

That is something in our world that is tragic. But again this not specific to sex work. The world is HEAVILY punctuated by people in careers they hate because the demands of life force them to. It is a tragic reality, but it is a reality all the same. But it is far from a relevant argument when made explicit in the context of ONE career path only.

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

It's end of the line crap for them and most money goes to the guy in charge.

Quite a few assumptions about the economics of sex work there. A lot of sex workers are independent. But what is telling is when you were pulled up on this your response was "No reason to reply" before running off. So I somewhat suspect you are as aware of the shaky foundations of your assumption as the other user is.

That said however, this is AGAIN the reality in most industries. So why, except to feed a narrative, decry it for just one? Most of the people working for someone else find "most money goes to the guy in charge" or the business they are working for.

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

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.

Not seeing how the two are mutually exclusive at all, or were you just trying to slip in a snide disparagement of another user under the radar rather than making a point? Because whatever your intention may have been, it does at least come across that way.

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

So trafficked prostitutes are not ok but the non-trafficked ones are fine?

Well yes, clearly. One being slavery and the other being informed consent and all that.

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

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)

No need to be sarcastic as I for one very much do see your point, and it is an important and good one.

But it is a point FOR a legal and regulated sex industry rather than a criminal one. Because, as you say, there is no way to tell when the industry is under ground and illegal. You go along to have sex with a sex worker and you have little knowledge, if any, of their background or how they came to be there.

A legal regulated industry however would at least give us the potential of the tools to work on this problem and provide the customer with ways to tell.

Why do you think people buy the more expensive cigarettes over the counter rather than black market ones? Why do people willingly pay more for free range chicken eggs?

Generally, when available, people often LIKE to source their products and services ethically. Even when cheaper alternatives exist. One need only to ensure the options AND the information is there.

El_Duderino 09

Dravokivich wrote:

Solicitantion is illegal, doesn't matter if it's from a street, apartment or hotel room. More than 1 sex worker at an address is considered brothel keeling, which is also illegal.

Cheers for that. So a prostitute working alone offering sexual services, is breaking the law on solicitation. How does it work if the actual act of performing the service is legal?

smacl

Olishi4 wrote: »

I didn't say that it would make it cease to exist. I said I understand the thought process behind the new law.
'
'
In 2009 there were over 60000 sex workers in the UK who had an average of 25 clients a week paying an average of almost 70 pounds.

50 percent started before they turned 18 and 95 percent of street workers are drug addicts.

Surely the combination of the above two statements is more of an argument for better regulation rather than further criminalisation? For example, does the new legislation that decriminalises prostitution effectively make street work less prone to prosecution and hence more attractive, yet it is street work leads to the worst possible outcomes for the prostitute? Morality aside, making something lucrative illegal that you know you can't stop is simply pandering the black market, criminality and all the attendant risks that go with it.

Dravokivich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Cheers for that. So a prostitute working alone offering sexual services, is breaking the law on solicitation. How does it work if the actual act of performing the service is legal?

Solicitation appears to be seen as being separate to the deed.

It's solely about presenting the availability of sex for money, and looking for sex for money.

However the focus generally tends to be on shaming the punter due to them paying for it. This new bill doesn't appear to be doing anything other than legislating that.

smacl wrote: »

Surely the combination of the above two statements is more of an argument for better regulation rather than further criminalisation? For example, does the new legislation that decriminalises prostitution effectively make street work less prone to prosecution and hence more attractive, yet it is street work leads to the worst possible outcomes for the prostitute? Morality aside, making something lucrative illegal that you know you can't stop is simply pandering the black market, criminality and all the attendant risks that go with it.

From what I've read, street work tends to be more an act of desperation. I've read some awful commentary by blokes who've considered that to make them likely to be more gamey. To counter those opinions It's also been something other blokes have mentioned as a reason not to be with them, however not out of pity...

El_Duderino 09

Dravokivich wrote:

Solicitation appears to be seen as being separate to the deed.
It's solely about presenting the availability of sex for money, and looking for sex for money.
However the focus generally tends to be on shaming the punter due to them paying for it. This new bill doesn't appear to be doing anything other than legislating that.

Thanks for clarifying. I find it difficult to imagine paying for sex without soliciting and agreeing to pay for sex. Is it possible to have. A conversation about the specific services wanted/provided, without breaking the law? What happens to consent in that case?

Strange set of laws government this issue. It doesn't look like the old or new laws are set up to really protect the people involved.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It doesn't matter to me which parts are illegal. The fact that selling sex is legal is a bit irrelevant considering that the activities associated with it are illegal. Such as solicitation in public or brothel work. That complicates going o the police to report crimes against them. The women in the article are an example of that.

You have been asked to back up your points but you can't.

You cannot show that a prostitute who goes to Gardai will be charged with any offence. All you have is vague assertions of 'complications'.

It suits you to be vague because you have no actual point. Nothing of substance supports your opinions.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The women in the article are an example of that.

This statement is an example of your vague, meaningless waffle. The woman in the article was convicted of being a brothel keep. This was already pointed out to you but here you are again, banging on about complications for prostitutes who complain to police. Yet you can't point to the offence with which they will be charged.

I call BS on the entirety of your contributions here.

Olishi4

smacl wrote: »

Surely the combination of the above two statements is more of an argument for better regulation rather than further criminalisation? For example, does the new legislation that decriminalises prostitution effectively make street work less prone to prosecution and hence more attractive, yet it is street work leads to the worst possible outcomes for the prostitute? Morality aside, making something lucrative illegal that you know you can't stop is simply pandering the black market, criminality and all the attendant risks that go with it.

Well like D said, unless they are desperate then it is more unlikely that they would want to work on the street. If they are only working because they are in desparate circumstances, at least the new law gives them the chance to report abuse. Also a lot of clients would not want to be seen breaking the law or risk getting caught so might be less likely to go down that route, reducing demand.

When I was about 18, I worked in an office and a contractor use to use our canteen. He came in one day and he was bragging about his time spent in Amsterdam where he visited sex workers. Out of curiously, I asked him if he visits sex workers in Ireland and he was not happy that i asked and said "no way" as if it was out of the question.

Dravokivich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying. I find it difficult to imagine paying for sex without soliciting and agreeing to pay for sex. Is it possible to have. A conversation about the specific services wanted/provided, without breaking the law? What happens to consent in that case?

Strange set of laws government this issue. It doesn't look like the old or new laws are set up to really protect the people involved.

It's all based on a closely timed series of nudge nudges and wink winks.

But in all seriousness. I have heard "word of" recently, but haven't seen an article to back it up, where someone who ran an Irish based classifieds website, was charged for pimping because he had categories for such services, that people put ads up for. No one expects much to come of it, as he didn't seek out those ads or post them he just facilitated them. Some people reckon it was just to push the agenda behind this new bill into the lime light.

But it has made a lot of people who seek these services very nervous, to the extent that they are displaying foolish traits of naivety. They don't realise or seem to consider that if challenged by the Gardaí the sex worker will have to declare and show where the money came from and how the services provided were agreed.

And the question of consent. It's a though one. Does the sex worker have a choice when someone gives them money? I'd be of the opinion they do, but the people driving these issue's don't. They see it as coercion. They look to the stereotypical reason why women get looped into sex work (drugs, low income, abandoned/marginalised mothers, trafficed) and look only to examples to support that. They then present the opinion that there was no possibility of consent due to the circumstances they expect a woman to be in.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Well like D said, unless they are desperate then it is more unlikely that they would want to work on the street. If they are only working because they are in desparate circumstances, at least the new law gives them the chance to report abuse. Also a lot of clients would not want to be seen breaking the law or risk getting caught so might be less likely to go down that route, reducing demand.

When I was about 18, I worked in an office and a contractor use to use our canteen. He came in one day and he was bragging about his time spent in Amsterdam where he visited sex workers. Out of curiously, I asked him if he visits sex workers in Ireland and he was not happy that i asked and said "no way" as if it was out of the question.

It doesn't give sex workers any more protection. It means they have to be more covert, otherwise it'll be hard to attract punters.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

You have been asked to back up your points but you can't.

We established that the act of selling sex isn't illegal, but solicitation is illegal. You helped me to clarify that point. Thanks for that.

Pat Mustard wrote:

You cannot show that a prostitute who goes to Gardai will be charged with any offence. All you have is vague assertions of 'complications'.

The brothel keepers were charged. You really want to split hairs rather than discuss the issues. As you wish.

Pat Mustard wrote:

This statement is an example of your vague, meaningless waffle. The woman in the article was convicted of being a brothel keep. This was already pointed out to you but here you are again, banging on about complications for prostitutes who complain to police. Yet you can't point to the offence with which they will be charged.

My point, if you can remember it, is that the laws create a class of people who have additional complications when considering reporting a rape or other abuse. You want to limit it to prostitutes for some reason. I don't need to limit it to prostitutes. The article was a case in point. Brothel keepers was allegedly raped because the guard knew she was unlikely to report it.

Pat Mustard wrote:

I call BS on the entirety of your contributions here.

I can see that you're in a flap to proving me wrong. Maybe a walk and a nice cup of tea, then come back for a chat about the issues?

El_Duderino 09

Dravokivich wrote:

It's all based on a closely timed series of nudge nudges and wink winks.

That's frightening as t really doesn't leave room to discuss the exact nature of the transaction.

Dravokivich wrote:

And the question of consent. It's a though one. Does the sex worker have a choice when someone gives them money? I'd be of the opinion they do, but the people driving these issue's don't. They see it as coercion. They look to the stereotypical reason why women get looped into sex work (drugs, low income, abandoned/marginalised mothers, trafficed) and look only to examples to support that. They then present the opinion that there was no possibility of consent due to the circumstances they expect a woman to be in.

I'd say sex workers have consent which they can give or withdraw at any point. Every other trade can decide what type of jobs to take on and which ones they don't want to do.

The sooner we it's tackled properly and regulated, the better.

With that said, regulation would make it more expensive and that would crate a market for prostitutes who'll do the job for cheap. You can never completely eliminate hidden economy trade of these things e.g. alcohol and tobacco. But you can regulate the vast majority of it and protect those involved. That's the important part anyway.

Olishi4

Dravokivich wrote: »

It doesn't give sex workers any more protection. It means they have to be more covert, otherwise it'll be hard to attract punters.

So in your opinion, less punters/reducing demand is a bad thing?

How many sex workers are estimated to be working in Ireland? I saw somewhere, it said about a thousand. I wonder how many are independent or how many are trafficked, drug addicts or working under someone.

smacl

Olishi4 wrote: »

Well like D said, unless they are desperate then it is more unlikely that they would want to work on the street. If they are only working because they are in desparate circumstances, at least the new law gives them the chance to report abuse. Also a lot of clients would not want to be seen breaking the law or risk getting caught so might be less likely to go down that route, reducing demand.

So the legislation hence seems to be there to reduce demand rather than afford much extra protection to the sex worker, who while not criminally liable, will still be working within a dangerous criminally controlled market. From what I've read the Nordic model seems to be gaining a fair amount of criticism, not least from sex workers. From a recent article in the Guardian

Many sex workers, admittedly, don’t want their clients criminalised. In France, backed by a commission of the senate, they vehemently protested that it would make their work more, rather than less, dangerous: it would reduce the number of punters, they say, and leave them facing greater competition, the more vulnerable because they would have less choice. Rather than enhancing their rights, they argued that criminalising clients would mean they were deprived of what they had. They cited a rise in police harassment in some countries with the result that sex workers were forced into increasingly dangerous environments.

Dravokivich

Olishi4 wrote: »

So in your opinion, less punters/reducing demand is a bad thing?

How many sex workers are estimated to be working in Ireland? I saw somewhere, it said about a thousand. I wonder how many are independent or how many are trafficked, drug addicts or working under someone.

To me it doesn't matter if there are more or less punters. What matters to me here is that someone looking for a service should not be shamed on the basis of the service being that of a sexual nature. That's all this bill is looking to enforce.

I don't know how many sex workers there are in Ireland, and just like it doesn't matter if there's more or less punters, it doesn't matter to me if there's more or less sex workers. What matters to me is that they are in safe/secure environments and the work they do is by their own determination. Which believe it or not, actually happens, means safety in numbers and having someone available close by as protection and I don't think that'll work out too well with some thug laying about.

Not everyone in sex work is a victim, and they shouldn't be insulted as such. Those who need help should be, but that's not all there is to it.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We established that the act of selling sex isn't illegal, but solicitation is illegal. You helped me to clarify that point. Thanks for that.

You couldn't find any reports of prostitutes in Ireland who had been convicted of it so you were unable to show that this was a real risk when prostitutes sell sex.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The brothel keepers were charged. You really want to split hairs rather than discuss the issues. As you wish.

Nobody is trying to protect brothel keeps. This is what is known as a red herring. You continue to distract and evade rather than deal with the topic at hand.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

My point, if you can remember it, is that the laws create a class of people who have additional complications when considering reporting a rape or other abuse. You want to limit it to prostitutes for some reason. I don't need to limit it to prostitutes. The article was a case in point. Brothel keepers was allegedly raped because the guard knew she was unlikely to report it.

The proposed law is not going to make brothel keeping legal. Nobody is trying to protect pimps, madams or brothel keeps. This is your own meandering and has nothing to do with anything else here.

Maybe you could read a book or a newspaper and attempt to form an opinion based on facts. What you have written is just waffle.

Wibbs

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You continue to distract and evade rather than deal with the topic at hand.

Aye. Keeping track of the "arguments" is akin to herding cats. Pointless and frustrating, to little good end.