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

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is worth noting that the study cited in that BBC link did not establish that there was 60000 sex workers with 25 clients a week. They were the figures ASSUMED by the study in order to estimate the value of Prostitution to the economy in that year.

As one website notes: "Then, for their calculation of how many clients sex workers see in a week, the ONS relied on research conducted in the Netherlands. It doesn’t take a genius to spot that a comparison between sex work in a country where it is legal and heavily regulated, and one where it is legal but still routinely criminalized, is simply not going to be equivalent or useful."

This is a good reason why it is best to read original studies rather than news paper or media articles ABOUT studies. That the BBC presented the studies assumptions as the "facts" shows their science writers probably have very little background in science. Which is, alas, true of most media science writers in big news media outlets.

The "Tax relief for escorts" website notes that "One of the difficulties the ONS have created for themselves is that instead of looking at each business sector separately – escorts, parlour girls, street workers etc – they have opted to lump them all together. The reality is that they work in completely different ways so attempting to estimate the average number of clients per week across all sectors is fraught with difficulties. Their estimate of 25 per week comes from a Netherlands study."

And the problems with the Netherlands study is that it includes figures from "parlour girls" which pushes the figure up, while ignoring part time workers, students, and single mothers who use sex work infrequently to subsidize income.

As one former prostitute writes "At no point as a sex worker did I ever see twenty-five clients in one week, much less on “average.” With brothels mostly criminalized (the toleration of saunas in Edinburgh and walkups in London’s SoHo have recently come under attack from police), it is unlikely any full-time sex worker in the UK would see such a turnover. And most sex workers here are not full-time." and when she questioned the figure herself she writes: "The researchers told me they were under time pressure to come up with a number, with EU directives demanding a result before September, and therefore did not have the time to contact anyone else about the prostitution figures."

I recall the University of Birmingham did a study on UK sex statistics however. In their discussion they noted that:

"The criminalisation of clients will only increase the dangers that sex workers and their clients may face in their attempts to avoid criminal prosecution. The government should consider the wealth of evidence that demonstrates that criminalisation increases the risks and likelihood of violence. In addition, claims that the Swedish model ‘works’ ignores evidence from Sweden that this approach exacerbates violence and is not supported by practitioners (Levy 2014). It also ignores other countries that recognise and appreciate the increased dangers sex workers would face through this law, as well as evidence from countries such as Norway where the law to ban the purchase of sex increased the majority of sex workers’ exposure to violence (Pro Senet 2012)."

Certainly anecdotally the people I have ever known or talked to who have done, or currently do, sex work are happy if they get 3 or 4 clients a week at 1 or 2 hundred euro a visit. One girl I knew who worked at it while a student had one single client, twice a month, and got about 250 each time out of it. The figure of 25 per week seems to cause quite some mirth among those I have communicated with. Usually with comments like "How do they even WALK at the end of a week?"

ligerdub

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Certainly anecdotally the people I have ever known or talked to who have done, or currently do, sex work are happy if they get 3 or 4 clients a week at 1 or 2 hundred euro a visit. One girl I knew who worked at it while a student had one single client, twice a month, and got about 250 each time out of it. The figure of 25 per week seems to cause quite some mirth among those I have communicated with. Usually with comments like "How do they even WALK at the end of a week?"

See that sounds much more plausible to me.

newport2

My view on this would be do whatever is best for the workers in this industry, whether that makes it legal or illegal.

From the coverage in the media in the last few years, my impression is that those in the industry were the ones who had the least input into this "solution". Those involved in getting it made illegal seem more concerned with ideology than actually about the workers themselves. It's often said that nobody wants to do this work and that it's only done as a last resort, and there may be a lot of truth in that, but if it is their last resort, what do they do then?

Olishi4

Noz, cant quote you for some reason.

Yes well I would agree that I was shocked to see those figures. Figures and studies will probably never be able to provide complete accurate information. Is it easy for you to accept that 25 clients a week seems unlikely from common sense but not to accept that it is unlikely that a significant majority of sex workers do have a healthy relationship with their "profession"?

If the 25 figure was true, would you find those figures shocking nozz? As you have made it clear now and before, you have no moral issue yourself and see the profession in terms of "body parts" and similar to a masseuse, would you find it shocking for a masseuse to see 25 clients a week? What about an active personal trainer? 25 clients a week seem alright to you? Why would a sex worker be seen differently here or would you think it was grand, like any other service?

The study was based on the Netherlands where the law is a system that you advocate for? If the study mainly relied on parlour girls, then are those figures acceptable to you for parlour girls?

You also mention that it doesn't include part-time workers, students and single mother's. Why is this job particularly mainly filled with students, single mother's and drug addicts?

In terms of whether it is legal or not, do you think that decriminalization could make the job seem more like an attractive choice to young women and increase it? It has been described in this thread that it's just "body parts", "lucrative", "flexible", "independent" and an "acting" job. Sounds great.

Also do you think that it could increase demand? Like that man I gave an example of who had no problem telling stories of his trip to Amsterdam but was horrified to be questioned on visiting a sex worker in Ireland? I should also clarify, he wasn't the stereotypical lonely, socially awkward client. At the time, he had two gfs who were only made aware of each other when he got both of them pregnant.

Something you said in your previous post doesn't sit well either. You said that we shouldn't be particularly concerned with the feelings of the sex worker whilst they are doing their "job", anymore than a mc donalds employee, handing over food a cross the counter. I think that is a very unusual outlook and message to send for any two people having sex in any circumstance.

El_Duderino 09

Olishi4 wrote:

Yes well I would agree that I was shocked to see those figures. Figures and studies will probably never be able to provide complete accurate information. Is it easy for you to accept that 25 clients a week seems unlikely from common sense but not to accept that it is unlikely that a significant majority of sex workers do have a healthy relationship with their "profession"?

Well the study I referenced had a section about the difficulty in researching prostitutes. The best it can do is used complete data from elsewhere because that's better than the alternative if using snippets of data the UK population. Then they discuss the biased sample because its almost impossible to research the independent ones who work from home.

It also mentioned the diversity in sex work. Trying to get an average of the hooker turning trucks at a truck stop, and a high end escort on overnight dates, is only illustrative. Trying to read too much into it is unhelpful

Radiosonde

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Trying to get an average of the hooker turning trucks at a truck stop,

The drivers usually turn the trucks themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

Figures and studies will probably never be able to provide complete accurate information.

A well done study can provide some information approaching accurate. We do it all the time. But as you say "completely" accurate is an ideal we strive for but never reach.

That said however I think we can agree that there is a CHASM of different between the difficulty of obtaining completely accurate data......... and plucking data from an entirely different country using an entirely different system with entirely differing laws....... and simply transferring it 1:1 over.

That to me would be about as useful as obtaining marketing information on fruit by pulling up the most recent sales figures of Pork and Apple Sausages.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Is it easy for you to accept that 25 clients a week seems unlikely from common sense but not to accept that it is unlikely that a significant majority of sex workers do have a healthy relationship with their "profession"?

No slight on you but I had to read that sentence 20 times and I am still not sure I understand the question. Perhaps it is the high number of negative pairings like "not to" followed by "unlikely".

I think you are asking me do I think sex workers have a healthy relationship with their profession? Or do I find it hard to accept that as a fact? I imagine I would accept it, were it true, more readily than many people would accept that many of them have an entirely healthy relationship with it and enjoy it.

I would say that this question has little to do with what I wrote. But I would expect the answer is that the profession as a whole is quite divided on the matter. I would say a significant number enjoy it. A significant number hate it. A significant number have a perfectly healthy relationship with it. A significant number do not.

What those ratios are, I would not presume to guess. But to me it is hardly relevant to discussing the legality or morality of the profession. Even if 100% of them hated the work entirely, that would still not be a relevant argument to me about the morality or legality of the profession.

Olishi4 wrote: »

If the 25 figure was true, would you find those figures shocking nozz?

An odd question but I honestly can not imagine why I would. Facts are just facts. I am not often shocked by them, nor do I generally having trouble accepting them. They just are what they are. When I see a figure like that I am not at all moved to be shocked by them, I am just moved to verify or correct them.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Why would a sex worker be seen differently here or would you think it was grand, like any other service?

You would have to ask someone who has been arguing to see them differently. As I have not been arguing that, I really do not have an answer for you.

Olishi4 wrote: »

The study was based on the Netherlands where the law is a system that you advocate for?

I am not sure if it is actually. I genuinely do not know the entire system there end to end. I do advocate a fully regulated and fully legal system. And I have some basic IDEAS on what forms the regulation MIGHT take. But I am not aware of what countries implement something like I would imagine. I am not even entirely sure how workable the application of the types of regulation I would IDEALLY like to see would be.

But yes, the study was based on assumptions based on a Netherlands study.... if that is your question. I had hoped I had made that clear in my previous post. If I did not, then I will endeavor to make it clearer the next time this subject comes up somewhere. But I hope this answers the question.

Olishi4 wrote: »

If the study mainly relied on parlour girls, then are those figures acceptable to you for parlour girls?

Again you seem more interested in my subjective feeling about the figures, than in the figures or their applicability in and of themselves. As I said above this strikes me as rather odd. Perhaps you are going somewhere with this approach that will be revealed in the next post or something. But I have to admit I am currently entirely baffled by it.

Olishi4 wrote: »

You also mention that it doesn't include part-time workers, students and single mother's. Why is this job particularly mainly filled with students, single mother's and drug addicts?

Did I say it was? I certainly do not recall saying it was. But I do occasionally write things I forget writing. Perhaps you could.... when you figure out why the quote system is not working for you..... remind me where I wrote it.

What I DO recall saying was that the figures are skewed by their NOT including such people. If a study is going to presume to tell us the average number of clients in an industry, it should do so based on a representative cross section of that industry. Not just a cherry picked high yield selection.

That would be like me estimating the average units of alcohol consumed by UK adults per week by ONLY surveying the people I find in "Early Houses" down near the docks.

Olishi4 wrote: »

In terms of whether it is legal or not, do you think that decriminalization could make the job seem more like an attractive choice to young women and increase it?

I certainly see that as possible yes, and your comment about demand too, but not one that would SIGNIFICANTLY impact the numbers I expect.

There are still stigmas around that type of work for one, which would not magically go away overnight just because the laws change.

And there are always going to be large numbers of people who simply are not into that kind of work regardless of the legality of it.

So while I would not be surprised if what you describe happened, I would be genuinely surprised if the effect was anything but marginal however. Unless there is an argument or factor in the argument I have failed thus far to consider.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Something you said in your previous post doesn't sit well either. You said that we shouldn't be particularly concerned with the feelings of the sex worker whilst they are doing their "job", anymore than a mc donalds employee, handing over food a cross the counter. I think that is a very unusual outlook and message to send for any two people having sex in any circumstance.

The comment was not said in the context of sex but the context of career choices. I have genuine deep empathy and concern for anyone who is in a career path that they hate or want to get out of. Whether that job be flipping burgers in McDonalds or earning 1000s of euros a month doing medical surgery. If they hate their work, they have my sympathy.

So do not mistake my comment as saying I have NO concerns. I do. Lots of it. And in fact I am currently working really hard with Syrian Refugees here in Germany to teach them Computer Programming to help them get out of the positions they hate that they are currently in.

My comment was just saying I do not hold MORE concerns for them than I do for others. On the assumption that they are, entirely of their own volition, pursuing this career choice. I respect peoples capability to make their own choices without needing a nanny state to make them for them. YMMV as they say.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Olishi4

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No slight on you but I had to read that sentence 20 times and I am still not sure I understand the question. Perhaps it is the high number of negative pairings like "not to" followed by "unlikely".

I think you are asking me do I think sex workers have a healthy relationship with their profession? Or do I find it hard to accept that as a fact? I imagine I would accept it, were it true, more readily than many people would accept that many of them have an entirely healthy relationship with it and enjoy it.

I would say that this question has little to do with what I wrote. But I would expect the answer is that the profession as a whole is quite divided on the matter. I would say a significant number enjoy it. A significant number hate it. A significant number have a perfectly healthy relationship with it. A significant number do not.

What those ratios are, I would not presume to guess. But to me it is hardly relevant to discussing the legality or morality of the profession. Even if 100% of them hated the work entirely, that would still not be a relevant argument to me about the morality or legality of the profession.

Well it depends on how you want to interpret "hated the work". If there is a large majority who are deeply impacted by the job, then that is who the law should be focussed on imo. If the law was able to reduce that at the expense of a smaller minority that do enjoy it, then I see no issue with the laws main priority not facilitating that.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A
An odd question but I honestly can not imagine why I would. Facts are just facts. I am not often shocked by them, nor do I generally having trouble accepting them. They just are what they are. When I see a figure like that I am not at all moved to be shocked by them, I am just moved to verify or correct them.

You would have to ask someone who has been arguing to see them differently. As I have not been arguing that, I really do not have an answer for you.

More jargon and avoiding the question.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure if it is actually. I genuinely do not know the entire system there end to end. I do advocate a fully regulated and fully legal system. And I have some basic IDEAS on what forms the regulation MIGHT take. But I am not aware of what countries implement something like I would imagine. I am not even entirely sure how workable the application of the types of regulation I would IDEALLY like to see would be.

So based on what you know of the system in the Netherlands, you generally are in agreement with it or not?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A
Again you seem more interested in my subjective feeling about the figures, than in the figures or their applicability in and of themselves. As I said above this strikes me as rather odd. Perhaps you are going somewhere with this approach that will be revealed in the next post or something. But I have to admit I am currently entirely baffled by it.

Did I say it was? I certainly do not recall saying it was. But I do occasionally write things I forget writing. Perhaps you could.... when you figure out why the quote system is not working for you..... remind me where I wrote it.

The quote system probably didn't work because your posts are ridiculously long. Go back and read your own post and find what you wrote yourself. Knock yourself out.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I certainly see that as possible yes, and your comment about demand too, but not one that would SIGNIFICANTLY impact the numbers I expect.

There are still stigmas around that type of work for one, which would not magically go away overnight just because the laws change.

And there are always going to be large numbers of people who simply are not into that kind of work regardless of the legality of it.

Ye there are still stigmas and do you think that could be a problem for someone trying to leave the industry, it could keep them there? I read that is one of the issues in the Netherlands.

And if someone gave that work a try and then realised that they are "simply not into that work", stigmas could have an impact on them furthering their career?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The comment was not said in the context of sex but the context of career choices. I have genuine deep empathy and concern for anyone who is in a career path that they hate or want to get out of. Whether that job be flipping burgers in McDonalds or earning 1000s of euros a month doing medical surgery. If they hate their work, they have my sympathy.

Ye your posts sound full of altruism alright. You said that people should not be any more concerned of the feelings of those they are having sex with through the purchase of sex than a mc donalds worker passing food across the counter. You can't just drop the context of sex when it suits you.

Anyway we have had this discussion before and I already explained to you we will both never agree and that I do not wish to debate it with you and your padded out posts where you have paragraphs and paragraphs going in roundabouts and nit picking at insignificant sentences to avoid questions and straight answers. I told before it looks like you are saying a lot but not really.

Olishi4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I did not objectify to sex workers having 25 clients a week. I said it was far fetched for anyone to try to tell me that a sex worker doing that really enjoys their job.

Also I read that in the Netherlands, there is a bill trying to increase the age from 18 to 21.

How many sex workers are there in your hypothetical scenario?

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I recall the University of Birmingham did a study on UK sex statistics however.

Thanks for the link, makes for interesting reading and good to get some properly researched data rather than just heated opinion. Looking at abstracts on the issue from related research there seems to be as much data that is critical of the so called 'Nordic model' as in favour of it. As others have already said, it seems reasonable that any approach that seeks to look after the best interests of sex workers should involve sex workers in a central role. This legislation does not do that.

ligerdub

So nobody saw the documentary on rte last night then?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

toptom

I hope they name and shame the degenerates that use those women so their families coworkers and community know what perverts are amongst them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

toptom wrote: »

I hope they name and shame the degenerates that use those women so their families coworkers and community know what perverts are amongst them.

Why are they perverts and what business is it of their friends and families? Is it only men using female prostitutes you take issue with, what about men using male prostitutes or women who use them?

ancapailldorcha

toptom wrote: »

I hope they name and shame the degenerates that use those women so their families coworkers and community know what perverts are amongst them.

Basically, the Helen Lovejoy shrieking response. A few of my friends have used prostitutes in the past. Most of them are now in fulfilling, long term relationships. Don't think it's something I'd ever want to do for myself but this sort of histrionics is preventing a rational conversation taking place about an important subject.

toptom

Its illegal its immoral and those women are trafficked by crime and drug gangs. Did any of your friends think of the diseases that they could catch from prostitutes and give to their wifes.

ancapailldorcha

toptom wrote: »

Its illegal its immoral and those women are trafficked by crime and drug gangs. Did any of your friends think of the diseases that they could catch from prostitutes and give to their wifes.

Why is it immoral? It's only illegal in some countries by the way.

dissed doc

eviltwin wrote: »

Why are they perverts and what business is it of their friends and families? Is it only men using female prostitutes you take issue with, what about men using male prostitutes or women who use them?

It's usually an issue people have around men with female prostitutes, hence the change in the law. Lesbians with female prostitutes and homosexuals with male prostitutes remain protected under the Social Justice Act 2015.

Stoogie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well the I think you will find the Algerian survey contradicts this.
Why are we us sing surveys from other countries?

dissed doc

toptom wrote: »

Its illegal its immoral and those women are trafficked by crime and drug gangs. Did any of your friends think of the diseases that they could catch from prostitutes and give to their wifes.

Immoral is your own viewpoint. Some people think abortion is immoral - should that be banned as well based on the moral viewpoints of whatever group claims Social Moral Authority at the moment? The Catholic Chruch? The Nazis? The United KIngdom? the EU? Ruhama?

It's not illegal either. Paying for sex in Ireland has been completely legal since before the foundation of the state. Moving backwards to a "dogma" era of moral acceptability decided by elites, is not progress.

The risk of picking up STIs from a prostitute I am guessing is about the same as the risk from a woman a man just met in a bar a few hours earlier. Do you have stats on the STI rate?

Trafficking is already illegal. You can't make something "more illegal". We already have laws in place - and trafficking still happens. So passing a new law logically will have absolutely no effect on trafficking.

mansize

I think the law is flawed and wrong.

Pimps, trafficking and running a brothel for profit is wrong.

A person willingly selling the commodity of sex and a person buying same should be a private transaction, with safeguards in place to protect the vulnerable.

Not surprising to see Ronan Mullen and the Magdalen Laundry nuns championing this law...

ligerdub

mansize wrote: »

I think the law is flawed and wrong.

Pimps, trafficking and running a brothel for profit is wrong.

A person willingly selling the commodity of sex and a person buying same should be a private transaction, with safeguards in place to protect the vulnerable.

Not surprising to see Ronan Mullen and the Magdalen Laundry nuns championing this law...

They are hardly the face of it though. The poster girl for the campaign is a clear misandrist, doing what she can to get back at men for her, admittedly difficult, life.

ligerdub

dissed doc wrote: »

It's usually an issue people have around men with female prostitutes, hence the change in the law. Lesbians with female prostitutes and homosexuals with male prostitutes remain protected under the Social Justice Act 2015.

Really?

Pat Mustard

mansize wrote: »

I think the law is flawed and wrong.

Do you mean that the proposed law (the 2015 bill) is flawed? The bill proposes to criminalise the purchase of sex (among other things). If that's what you are saying, I agree.

mansize wrote: »

Pimps, trafficking and running a brothel for profit is wrong.

A person willingly selling the commodity of sex and a person buying same should be a private transaction, with safeguards in place to protect the vulnerable.

If the main aim is to protect the vulnerable, I would have thought that regulation would be the way forward. Pay and conditions could be regulated. If regulation was ever to be introduced, I would have assumed that brothels and brothel managers (pimps, essentially) would also have a part to play, realistically.

Trafficking is a separate issue, even if it is connected.

eviltwin

dissed doc wrote: »

It's usually an issue people have around men with female prostitutes, hence the change in the law. Lesbians with female prostitutes and homosexuals with male prostitutes remain protected under the Social Justice Act 2015.

What about women with male prostitutes?

ancapailldorcha

Stoogie wrote: »

Well the I think you will find the Algerian survey contradicts this.
Why are we us sing surveys from other countries?

You're happy to cherrypick surveys that suit your agenda? The UK is a Western nation. Algeria is not. It's a better example.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

If the main aim is to protect the vulnerable, I would have thought that regulation would be the way forward. Pay and conditions could be regulated. If regulation was ever to be introduced, I would have assumed that brothels and brothel managers (pimps, essentially) would also have a part to play, realistically.

Trafficking is a separate issue, even if it is connected.

Indeed. Criminals aren't renowned for spending time and money on prostitutes' welfare. The fact that people seem to think that the status quo is preferable to legalisation says that it's about their ideology as opposed to what might be better for sex workers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mansize

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Do you mean that the proposed law (the 2015 bill) is flawed? The bill proposes to criminalise the purchase of sex (among other things). If that's what you are saying, I agree.


If the main aim is to protect the vulnerable, I would have thought that regulation would be the way forward. Pay and conditions could be regulated. If regulation was ever to be introduced, I would have assumed that brothels and brothel managers (pimps, essentially) would also have a part to play, realistically.

Trafficking is a separate issue, even if it is connected.

Yes the proposed bill -its currently flawed.

Keeping brothels I would disagree with on the fact of someone making money from other's prostitution- It should really be a self employed thing

Pat Mustard

mansize wrote: »

Keeping brothels I would disagree with on the fact of someone making money from other's prostitution- It should really be a self employed thing

That proposal would only regulate self-employed prostitutes, meaning that those who don't run their own businesses would remain effectively unregulated and unprotected by law, to an extent.

Also, where there are prostitutes, pimps and brothel owners are not far away, whether we like it or not. If prostitution is to be regulated, pimps and brothel owners should be made to toe the line also. Otherwise, they will continue to work in the criminal sphere in which they have always operated. This is not going to serve to protect those who are vulnerable.

What do you think?

Stoogie

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're happy to cherrypick surveys that suit your agenda? The UK is a Western nation. Algeria is not. .

I know nothing about Algeria the point was this is not the uk

Dravokivich

toptom wrote: »

Its illegal its immoral and those women are trafficked by crime and drug gangs. Did any of your friends think of the diseases that they could catch from prostitutes and give to their wifes.

Third time asking this week:

Why is the first thing people think of trafficking, when it comes to prostitution?

There has been a greater impact with trafficked workforce in construction and fisheries here over the last 10 years, than is possible to record in prostitution. What did we do for them workers? We looked to review the systems available to support them.

The issue with prostitution from lobbyists all seems to be about sex and pushing an agenda by victimising everyone who works in it and shaming everyone who seeks it. To hell with reviewing systems available to support them, lets just push it into a deeper darker place so it's less visible.

mansize wrote: »

Yes the proposed bill -its currently flawed.

Keeping brothels I would disagree with on the fact of someone making money from other's prostitution- It should really be a self employed thing

I don't see the hang up of a brothel. They're viewed negatively because in movies we see marginalised women being forced to do sex acts in them, or in the news we occasionally hear of a group of smuggled women. That doesn't mean all brothels will be like that. As it is, a brothel is once there are 2 sex workers present on a premises. There isn't anything inherently wrong in someone providing a premises or facilities similar to renting out office space.

nozzferrahhtoo

ligerdub wrote: »

So nobody saw the documentary on rte last night then?

I currently live in Germany so I did not. If it pops up on RTE player then let me know as I have an Irish Proxy and can view it then.

toptom wrote: »

I hope they name and shame the degenerates that use those women so their families coworkers and community know what perverts are amongst them.

Can you validate or expand on any of that, or is it soap boxing without substance that we can expect in general?

Also what does perversion even mean to you? Given the statistics showing just how many people engage with sex workers, how is it a perversion? Is there a magical % in your head where something stops being a perversion and starts being the norm? OR would it, to you at least, remain a perversion even if 99% of people were doing it?

Or in short, how is it exactly you define and measure "perversion" exactly? What do you even think it means?

toptom wrote: »

Its illegal its immoral and those women are trafficked by crime and drug gangs. Did any of your friends think of the diseases that they could catch from prostitutes and give to their wifes.

It is not illegal actually. You have not shown any arguments that it is immoral. And I am not seeing any figures from you showing how many, if any, women working at it in Ireland are trafficked by crime and drug gangs.

And further, where trafficking is occurring, what is your basis or opinion or facts related to whether trafficking is positively or negatively affected by laws for or against sex work in general? Do you think underground trafficking does BETTER in a country where sex work is illegal and underground, or in one where sex work is correctly and effectively regulated and legal?

So I am seeing a lot of assertion and little substance here. Could you maybe turn the dial from the former to the latter for awhile?

mansize wrote: »

Yes the proposed bill -its currently flawed.

Keeping brothels I would disagree with on the fact of someone making money from other's prostitution- It should really be a self employed thing

Well that depends I would imagine. Ideally brothels would be providing a service that compliments and benefits the sex workers. That is, a clean and accessible location for the work, strong and useful security protecting their well being, services for advertising and marketing, and so forth.

And they by all means deserve their own income for providing that service.

It is the same as many other industries where someone has their product or service complimented and supported by someone else providing other products and service. From premises, to security, to marketing, to insurance and more.

Dravokivich wrote: »

Why is the first thing people think of trafficking, when it comes to prostitution?

Probably the same reason people think of AIDS when it comes to homosexuality. It is what I call a "manufactured argument". In other words they manufacture the argument by proposing or opposing moves that would lessen that argument.

In other words they have no coherent or cogent arguments against something, so they maintain a status quo that GIVES them arguments.

They claim to be concerned about trafficking to support their anti sex work narrative, but they show no interest in moves that would address trafficking because to do so would leave them without that argument.

It is similar in the anti gay marriage debate. People cite the relatively high AIDS rates of SOME subsections of the homosexual community. But they ignore the fact marriage promotes monogamy which will affect STD transmission rates. They NEED there to be AIDS so they have SOMETHING to hit homosexuality with. It is all very circular.

So they grasp at trafficking as an argument against prostitution, ignoring the fact that trafficking likely BENEFITS from an illegal, black market, underground trade of sex and would SUFFER in a well regulated legal atmosphere.

Cake AND eat it stuff to be sure.

And worse they IGNORE their own argument types when it does not suit them to do so. They indict prostitution with slavery and trafficking, but they ignore slavery and trafficking as an arguments against industries they have no beef with.

This is what comes of starting with a conclusion and working back selectively through the arguments to support it..... rather than looking at the arguments and following them to the conclusion.

nozzferrahhtoo

I will edit out your personal nonsense and reply mostly to what is actually on topic.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Well it depends on how you want to interpret "hated the work". If there is a large majority who are deeply impacted by the job, then that is who the law should be focussed on imo.

I am not sure why to be honest.

Firstly the "if" is no small "if" that you slip in there. Let us establish those facts rather than worry about "ifs".

Secondly are we a nanny state that should legislate for protecting people from their own choices. Even "if" they are deeply impacted by their work, is that our concern? Let alone why should it be the concern of law?

Thirdly, for example I know two women who work as medical nurses in the context of working with people recovering from addictions. There are days, averaging one a week but often more, when they come home and literally break down in tears for an hour or two. They are deeply impacted by their job. So? What?

Olishi4 wrote: »

More jargon and avoiding the question.

A spurious accusation and entirely false. I have no reputation on this web site of avoiding questions, quite the opposite, and I do not intend to start now.

However I see no onus on me to answer a question about a position I myself do not hold, nor have you offered a reason why I might. You not liking an answer is NOT the same as me not having answered. Do not pretend otherwise as it makes you look bad, not me.

You are asking me why they SHOULD be seen differently when I very clearly said they should NOT be seen differently. Therefore the only one avoiding things here is you, not me, as your question is avoiding my actual position and questioning instead one I do not hold.

But by ALL MEANS explain to me why I should answer a question about why they should be treated differently when my position is they should NOT be? I can not wait to hear this one explained, really. I am agog.

Olishi4 wrote: »

So based on what you know of the system in the Netherlands, you generally are in agreement with it or not?

I am broadly in agreement with legalization and regulation of prostitution and sex work yes.

I believe it to be a career choice like any other. I believe it should be taxed like any other income. I believe they should have all the same protections and benefits that others have in their careers, like social medical insurance, pensions, and any of the other benefits workers in their country enjoy.

I am also for a form of regulation that allows for either a license to do sex work, or some form of "quality assurance mark" as their industry standard. Whichever of those it would be, obtaining it should involve periodic renewal, and the qualifications for that application and subsequent renewal should be tailored in the best way humanly and functionally possible to address issues like STDs and Human Trafficking.

That is to say, obtaining this license or Quality Assurance Standard should involve tests for STDs, and any possible tests to check that the applicant is operating of their own volition and is not a trafficked sex slave.

That way regulation will protect and support sex workers, while also giving the consumer the information and possibility to ethically source the product. Because other industries from chicken eggs all the way to cigarette sales show us that people often will happily pay a little more for a product they can ethically source when given the means and information to do so.

Especially when ethically sourcing it has impacts on their own health and well being. How many people would NOT spend an extra 10 euro an hour if one sex worker has no quality mark, and the other has one at least offering SOME assurance the sex worker is medically and ethically "clean"?

Olishi4 wrote: »

The quote system probably didn't work because your posts are ridiculously long. Go back and read your own post and find what you wrote yourself. Knock yourself out.

Now who is avoiding questions? To the point of ENTIRELY inventing glitches in the forums software that simply do not exist. The fact is I never said it, you can not find me having said it, so you are squirming quite transparently out of it and trying to dump it on me. Extremely comical that you throw around unsubstantiated and spurious accusations like "nit picking at insignificant sentences to avoid questions and straight answers" when the only one actually DOING that is you, you, and you, as well as you, and only you. Project much?

Olishi4 wrote: »

Ye there are still stigmas and do you think that could be a problem for someone trying to leave the industry, it could keep them there? I read that is one of the issues in the Netherlands. And if someone gave that work a try and then realised that they are "simply not into that work", stigmas could have an impact on them furthering their career?

I absolutely and entirely agree and wholly believe the unwarranted stigmatization of people in any industry will give them problems both IN that industry and in getting out of it.

I think making the industry legal and legitimate is a strong step towards combating that stigma, but it would by far not be an over night change. Nor is it the only one. There are many ways we should address that stigmatization. Up to and including the immature and petty way in which humans view their own sex and sexuality in general.

It is a long term view. But anything we can do to combat it I think would benefit everyone and will not cause ANY harms that I can discern or that you yourself have suggested.

So if you are intending to make a point here I genuinely do not see it, or maybe you are just thinking out loud and not making a point. But I do not see this as a point of contention. Stigma is a bad thing and they suffer needlessly for it in many ways.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Ye your posts sound full of altruism alright. You said that people should not be any more concerned of the feelings of those they are having sex with through the purchase of sex than a mc donalds worker passing food across the counter. You can't just drop the context of sex when it suits you.

And you can not elevate the context of sex when it suits YOU. My altruism is not to be measured on the relative levels of it between X and Y alone. If I say my altruism and concern for X and Y is the same then the relevant measure of my altruism and concern is how much I hold for X and/or Y. IF this is already high (which it is) then you can not detract from that simply because YOU want one to be higher than the other, or that you imagine my position on this matter is any way weakened because it is not.

ligerdub

http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/paying-for-sex-reality-bites-30004286/10637341/

Walter H Price

i love the it's immoral argument ... Morals are a peronal thing what you view as immoral i might view as totaly fine .... In the way your morals say paying for s€x is wrong , jews and muslims believe having an aul sausage or rasher with your fry is morally wrong ... If you find it morally wrong thats ok all you have to do is not pay for sex , dosnt mean it should be illeagle for everyone else

nozzferrahhtoo

ligerdub wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/paying-for-sex-reality-bites-30004286/10637341/

Thanks I was too busy (lazy?) to look myself.

If I was against prostitution I would not be happy with this documentary so far. The "pro" side has been throwing out their arguments, comparing laws in other countries, explaining why they think some laws are better than others, explaining the harms they see in criminalizing it. Within the first 5 minutes we heard the argument, for example, that we heard on this thread where the Sex Worker campaigning against it being criminal talked of how it being criminal makes you less likely to speak with the guards, and so this makes them a target for crime.

The "anti" side however do not appear to have many arguments. It is all appeals to emotion and the like. A scene with two naked women embracing while people stand around them squirting them with blood colored gel for example. Or a woman or two lined up to say that they hated the work while they were doing it. Then one ex sex worker who merely decreed by fiat that men purchasing sex are "living out their misogynistic women hating fantasies on your body". Hyperbole much???? And then finally a man rolled out to say that a man who liked raping prostitutes, while out on parole, murdered his wife which..... while an awful thing to happen...... I am struggling to see ANY relevance to the topic.

But remove the appeals to emotion and (so far at least, I am only at 24:30 out of 51:14) ALL the arguments presented are on the pro side and I am not getting to hear any actual anti arguments yet. Perhaps in the second half.......

nozzferrahhtoo

It did not get much better in the second half either. By the time we reach 31 minutes into it we have heard what the "pro" side want, what their proposals are and why.

But on the "anti" side we have an ex sex worker telling us "The clients were not working class but middle class doctors and architects with big rolexs". Right..... again.... relevance????? And this testimony was from someone who themselves admits to having "A phobia of white men".

And then this segues back into the "pro" campaigner going into the house of commons to directly discuss legislation. At one point it shows her holding a barely manageable STACK of evidence documents on why the new law is a poor law. It showed nothing like that for the "anti" side.

Then later it goes back to the ex sex worker campaigner and her moaning about the "online backlash" she got for coming out against prostitution. Then it goes on wasting time with her proving she has a background in the sex industry. Again..... relevance? Appeal to emotion irrelevancy more like.

As I said, if I was on the "anti" side I would be very much let down by the representation this documentary gave me. But perhaps this is because there ARE no decent or coherent arguments to represent? I certainly have not heard any, anywhere, least of all on this forum or in that documentary.

Even on an emotional level I would be disappointed with the choice of representatives. The Pro Campaigner was a chirpy, articulate, artistic, happy, smiley, bubbly personality. The Sex worker chosen for the anti side was a dour monotone hyperbolic bore. Not that that is relevant to the arguments. AT ALL. But I suspect many people DO respond to that kind of thing, and I would be..... were I "anti"...... a little let down with the relative choices.

But what worries me about her is not her being boring or monotone and dour.... but the style of her arguments. In the first half as I said her hyperbole exploded with the nonsense "Purchasing sex work is the expression of male misogynistic women hating" and then in this half she led a protest in london that was expressly "women only" and continues to describe sex work with rhetoric like "Prostitution is an aspect of male violence, the oldest expression of male violence in history". So what, men are not allowed march and/or protest against violence against women now is it???? And then one of the last things we hear from here is "I remember my last job...... he was utterly repulsive". Great ok.... but AGAIN.... relevance? Seriously. What? Is? Your? Point???

So whether RTE intended to or not their main choice of representative against prostitution is not showing herself to be against prostitution.... but entirely against MEN. And that is a bit of a let down both for the anti side, and those of us on the pro side who genuinely wanted to find and hear and consider the "anti" sides arguments.

And when it comes to appeals to authority the documentary rolled in Amnesty International and SWAI for the "pro" side. If the "anti" side had supportive citation mentioned in the documentary at all.... I genuinely missed it. I am not sure there was one.

I would not consider this a fair and balanced documentary were I on the opposing side to the one I am actually on. The only time the "pro" side looked a bit bad was a clip when Norris (I think it was Norris) was a bit loud and shrill and preachy and harping on about some "feminist agenda" in a way that just made him look loud, shrill and paranoid. That is just as bad as Moran's obvious man hatred. Neither side benefits from that crap.

But as I said I wonder if this is because RTE were not being fair and balanced..... or there simply isn't a coherent or cogent opposition to usefully represent. The arguments against legal sex work if the documentary AND this forum are to be taken as representative..... are simply poor to non-existent or.... at best...... entirely irrelevant.

ligerdub

The documentary shows everything we need to know about this proposed law. We can see the influential characters behind it, and the environment in which it has been brought forward.

As you mention above, Moran, the main driving force behind this campaign, is a real piece of work. She seems to have gone out of her way to use her own personal negative experiences in life to go on a personal crusade against men. She has decided to tar everyone with the same brush. Not only are her own experiences not representative of the profession as a whole, she strikes me as somebody with a frankly stunning lack of insight, and without trying to sound vindictive, a stupid person.

Moran has neglected the fact that her status at the time, the really low end of the ladder, the drug addicted street hooker, is one which is going to attract a higher percentage of johns who have no respect for them. Their very minuscule status is their vulnerability. This is a world away from the escort type prostitute as shown by the American woman in the documentary. The chances of getting that sort of abusive behaviour in that environment is massively reduced. They are clearly higher status women, and as such less compelling (I can't think of a better word) for the types of people Moran is trying to tar all johns as. This sort of prostitute (the Moran description) is not a fair representation of one who would exist in a regulated system. In fact this sort of behaviour would certainly be massively reduced in such an environment. There could still be street hookers of course, but you could still make that illegal, much like you would for an unlicensed vendor in certain regulated service industries.

There was an aspect of this documentary which struck me. Some women who had worked as prostitutes did so as a final resort, including Moran. She wants to criminalise Johns, but where would she be without prostitution? I suspect she wouldn't have custody of her child. I suspect she'd probably be dead to be honest. Now let's contrast this to men in desperation. What can they do to make money to keep them off the streets? Very little, and most if it is very dangerous. There are certainly few options which generate sympathy for their cause.

Whatever about the merits of any potential ruling, bringing in legislation on the basis of vindictive crusades against specific types of people sets a very dangerous precedent, and has no place in our society.

As a final point, it's interesting that so many feminists call termination rights of an unborn child "female autonomy", yet refuse a situation for genuine female autonomy, and male autonomy for that matter in this case!

nozzferrahhtoo

Have to say I never seen or heard of Moran before the documentary. Odd that she can be that active and I never heard the name. Guess I am not paying as much attention to this issue as I thought I was.

eviltwin

A lot of feminists do support full regulation of the sex industry, myself included. Please don't lump us altogether as having one hive mind on this. I don't think keeping it illegal and having a stigma around the selling of sexual services does men and women working in the system any good, it makes them incredibly vulnerable. Complete transparency is the way to go. It won't stop all illegal activity and there will still be desperate people working the streets but it's a start. Paying for sex is nothing to be ashamed of, neither is selling it.

ligerdub

eviltwin wrote: »

A lot of feminists do support full regulation of the sex industry, myself included. Please don't lump us altogether as having one hive mind on this. I don't think keeping it illegal and having a stigma around the selling of sexual services does men and women working in the system any good, it makes them incredibly vulnerable. Complete transparency is the way to go. It won't stop all illegal activity and there will still be desperate people working the streets but it's a start. Paying for sex is nothing to be ashamed of, neither is selling it.

Yeah, fair enough. It was mainly the sight of Bacik that set me off on that score.

ancapailldorcha

eviltwin wrote: »

Paying for sex is nothing to be ashamed of, neither is selling it.

I don't know. I find the idea to be fairly vile to be honest. I just don't think I have the right to impose my own moral views on the population as a whole and at the expense of the welfare of those who work in the industry.

El_Duderino 09

eviltwin wrote:

A lot of feminists do support full regulation of the sex industry, myself included. Please don't lump us altogether as having one hive mind on this. I don't think keeping it illegal and having a stigma around the selling of sexual services does men and women working in the system any good, it makes them incredibly vulnerable. Complete transparency is the way to go. It won't stop all illegal activity and there will still be desperate people working the streets but it's a start. Paying for sex is nothing to be ashamed of, neither is selling it.

I'd agree. Treat sex work as any other business and let it confirm to a the normal standards for a business. Why would anyone want to make pristitution legal without legalising the whole industry? Surely that's the safest way to go.

Olishi4

So how transparent is it to be? I knew a sex worker once. She was a single mother and didn't work frequently like previously described in the thread. When people in the area found out, she didnt recieve any judgemental reactions from her friends but there were some men from her neighbourhood who had no issue with randomly knocking on her door in the middle of the night. Not even her clients and she didnt even work from home. She actually felt the need to get a dog.

That's not me trying to make it sound like men are awful or stalking her and I personally have no feminist agenda here but just saying realistically how it was for her.

Also, if moving into a new career, is this to go on the cv? Why should she have to hide it or lie? When that woman I knew started working in a certain local part time job, she was propositioned by her boss and the boss's son. Is that sexual harassment?

For those who say that there is no moral argument, would you be content with a loved one choosing sex work as a career if they said it makes them happy?

I'm not asking if you would prevent, shame or even encourage it as a career option but would you be genuinely content and see it as a chance to do your part in removing stigma or could it be damaging to your actual relationship or damaging to you? If you would be content, fair enough. I'm not saying it matters if it was affecting you because of course we cant say everyone would feel negatively about it, can't even say a majority but I am asking would it effect you, since you see no moral issue?

NI24

Olishi4 wrote: »

So how transparent is it to be? I knew a sex worker once. She was a single mother and didn't work frequently like previously described in the thread. When people in the area found out, she didnt recieve any judgemental reactions from her friends but there were some men from her neighbourhood who had no issue with randomly knocking on her door in the middle of the night. Not even her clients and she didnt even work from home. She actually felt the need to get a dog.

That's not me trying to make it sound like men are awful or stalking her and I personally have no feminist agenda here but just saying realistically how it was for her.

If what you say about men propositioning her is true then is really does say a lot about how awful men are. It would be one thing if it was just one random guy but more then one from her neighborhood and her boss and boss's son? That's really despicable.

Anyways, this issue has come up before in After Hours I think, and the general consensus among the men was that most would never date a prostitute yet they see nothing wrong with soliciting one.

Olishi4

NI24 wrote: »

If what you say about men propositioning her is true then is really does say a lot about how awful men are. It would be one thing if it was just one random guy but more then one from her neighborhood and her boss and boss's son? That's really despicable.

Anyways, this issue has come up before in After Hours I think, and the general consensus among the men was that most would never date a prostitute yet they see nothing wrong with soliciting one.

Well some of them might have been awful, others just thought "well, she's a sex worker, I'm a client, I'll knock in and ask"??

She got into the "profession" initially from a young age with encouragement from her own mother so her situation was not just about men.

NI24

Olishi4 wrote: »

Well some of them might have been awful, others just thought "well, she's a sex worker, I'm a client, I'll knock in and ask"??

She got into the "profession" initially from a young age with encouragement from her own mother so her situation was not just about men.

Yeah but knocking on someone's door thinking they're "up for it" any time shows a total lack of respect for the woman and really illustrates what a lot of men who use prostitutes think of these women.

Oh, and propositioning an employee? It's truly depressing that there are so many sleazy men out there.

Wibbs

NI24 wrote: »

If what you say about men propositioning her is true then is really does say a lot about how awful men are. It would be one thing if it was just one random guy but more then one from her neighborhood and her boss and boss's son? That's really despicable.

Aye of course a few muppets means Men(™) are awful. :rolleyes: You'll have to come down off that cross someday.

Anyways, this issue has come up before in After Hours I think, and the general consensus among the men was that most would never date a prostitute yet they see nothing wrong with soliciting one.

IIRC and I do, the general consensus among the men(we had a meeting) was that some of the men - indeed quite a large chunk of them - would indeed "date" an prostitute if she was an ex prostitute, cos the past doesn't matter or somesuch. I remember it quite well as I was of the smaller group who was scratching his head thinking "Eh WTF?" to that. Solicitation was a separate issue on said thread and the consensus there was "it's not for me, but if someone wants to sell and others want to buy then play ball".