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

smacl

Olishi4 wrote: »

This could encourage a sex worker to just get on with it even though they might not want to.

With respect, there is a difference between not wanting to do something and not consenting to do it. Many people do many jobs they'd rather not do, they simply need the money, much like your taxi driver having to deal with aggressive drunks in the early hours of the morning. I would imagine for many sex workers that have taken the money, the most pragmatic solution is just to get on with it, unpleasant as that might be, though I would have thought that the possibility to remove consent and return the money would be more practical in a more controlled environment that actively sought to exclude criminal involvement.

Olishi4

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah nice of you to return having ignored my previous post..

I told you in the last thread not to wait on a response from me so consider yourself lucky

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Firstly it is a general point that could apply to anything. Alcohol destroys many marriages. Should we hold ill will therefore to the bar man or the public establishment that will facilitate those spouses having a beer?

Secondly whatever the immorality of infidelity might be, that is the immorality of infidelity, not of sex work. That is what I referred to above when I talked of how people are willing to indict X with the crimes of Y.

So yes I am aware of why people feel that way, and why this point is brought up. I just happen to be equally aware of why it is a complete nonsense, and why people apply such "arguments" selectively.

Not sure what this has to do with replying to my post, but sure.... I have no doubt that there are people who would not want to enter into a romantic or sexual relationship with a sex worker. Is there a point here you are making, or are you just mentioning it in general without a point?

Lots of careers make it more difficult to enter and maintain relationships. Many people would not want to enter into one with a soldier with over seas postings for example. Many people do not want to enter one with doctors or nurses due to the long and often unsociable hours they work. The list goes on at some length, but yes some career choices preclude some relationship choices. So what?

And I'm the one that applies arguments selectively? but soldier on there noz!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You tell me, given I am the one saying it should essentially NOT be treated, where possible, as any different to any other. That is the point I have made a few times but no one responded to it.... choosing instead to get haughty and worked up about my comparison of it to another profession rather than address the point behind the comparison..

Oh ye, remember your comparison earlier in the thread, that the client doesn't need to consider the feelings of sex worker whilst doing their job any more than being served by an employee at a mc donalds counter. When confronted with that, you then altered your already selective comparison and nit picked at that to form some sort of apparent viable explanation. Also i told you before that you tend to do that and the points raised end up like some form of Chinese whispers in a thread.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I asked on the thread why it should be treated differently under a few example areas but this was entirely ignored at the time. I chose the example of massage solely because of a few relevant overlaps. It is often freelance work for one example. It can be done on home site, customer site, or intermediate site for another. It involves the manipulation (often but not always pleasurable) of the clients person using parts of the workers person for another. There are useful overlaps there..... overlaps that are not negates by whinging that there are other large differences between the two. .

So everyone should answer to your selective argument? I told you before in relation to "body parts" that a masseuse uses their hands which we also use in everyday life, exchange money with, prepare and serve food with etc The client does not touch the masseuse. It's significant in your comparison when you say it's just "body parts".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All of them? ALL? Wow, so it is hyperbole we are dealing with now is it. Perhaps you can elaborate on the such as what, and how? Rather than the sweeping statements with no substance. .

Well maybe not all but a fairly important and significant few.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again this would be the same for a masseuse. Perhaps they would feel compelled to continue despite some factor suddenly making them feel like they do not want to, such as an extreme Body Odor or Flatulence to name but two random examples. Or maybe they notice some random thing about the person, a physical feature, a fungal toe nail infection, anything.... and it makes them physically feel they do not want to continue..

Ewww imagine feeling "compelled" to have sex with someone after noticing and feeling that way about those things you mention!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What do any free lance people do when they do not want to work for a few weeks? They simply do not work for a few weeks. Again you keep asking me why they should be treated differently, but then giving me examples where I believe they should not be.

What does a free lance masseuse do when they do not want to work for a few weeks? Or an under wear model? Or a translator?

I imagine they simply say "I do not want to work for a few weeks" and then..... don't. .

But the reasons why they might not want to work are very different here.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I promote decorum in how one presents oneself in discourse. The content is it's own thing and would not bother me at all.

That said, this is not a point for or against prostitution you are making here. It is a point against his nonsense interpretation of the work. It is not "his job" to submit to acts he does not want to just because it is sexual for the client. It is his job to CONSIDER the application by a client and accept or reject it.

Just being a sex worker does not make it your job to consent and submit to every sex act a customer demands. This person whom you (semi) cite is merely talking complete nonsense.

And that is great. Supply and Demand. Nothing wrong with that. What is important over anything else however is that each individual sex worker has full autonomy to accept or reject any contract or any act during the negotiations.

They should be able to say "No I do not do that particular thing" in the same way as a free lance builder can say "No I do not do roof work because heights are too dangerous and I do not want to do them. I do ground level building and installation work only".

Oh no he had no problem consenting to and facilitating a dangerous sexual act. He was happy to get paid. You think others don't have "nonsense interpretations"?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am entirely open minded as to what form regulation would take as it happens. For example I would love to see SOME kind of PERIODIC licensing, accreditation, or quality assurance system. Which could involve anything such as periodic health checks or whatever before the license or accreditation could be renewed.

I remain open minded on that in many ways. I would need to think and research further on it. For example there is useful discourse to be had on whether such a thing should be compulsory (a license for example) or voluntary (such as a Quality Assurance Creditation).

So I would be entirely open to considering a "course" as part of that. It would entirely depend on the curriculum that was proposed, and on what basis though, and whether anything in that course actually had any actual utility or benefit to the workers, the consumers, or the industry itself.

But by all means suggest such a curriculum on what you think the utility and benefits of the items suggested are, and I can tell you what I think of them. For example are there STDs that manifest visibly identifiable traits? If yes, should the workers be trained to identify them? I would say that would be highly beneficial. But thats just the first random thing that came into my head.

Yes i have a great idea. We could get all sex workers certified, document client appointments, dates, times, names, age, specific client requests etc. As part of training, sex workers should be encouraged to document their work like a little black book, right? Im sure clients would have no problem with workplace accidents reported. Why would they? It's just a service.

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

I told you in the last thread not to wait on a response from me

Yea an MO of skipping over posts is quite common around here, it is nothing new to me. I guess I can just be glad internally that I am not that kind of person myself. Though I fully expect there is a not insignificant number of people who genuinely wish I was

Olishi4 wrote: »

And I'm the one that applies arguments selectively? but soldier on there noz!

Vague and substance less sentence from you here. If you have identified me doing something that I have rightly identified you doing, then by all means point it out and explain it. But this kind of vague non-referencing allows you to look like you are saying something while not actually saying anything at all.

Note the contrast. When I point out selectively applied arguments I say WHICH argument, I show HOW it was selectively applied and I show WHERE it can equally validly be applied but was not. When you do it.... well nothing of the sort happens. Quite the distinction there.

Olishi4 wrote: »

When confronted with that, you then altered your already selective comparison and nit picked at that to form some sort of apparent viable explanation.

I altered nothing, and as with your accusation above you do not actually point out the substance of your vacuous accusations. The comparison still holds unaltered in that I was talking at the time about how we should feel about people who are in the career of prostitution but do not actually want to be.

And what I said at the time, before any of your distortions of it, is that I do feel sympathy for them. But not specifically them. I feel that sympathy for ANYONE in the world who finds themselves on a career path they do not want to be on. And I love initiatives that allow us to offer such people a way out. Mature Student Grants for example allow people who slightly later in life to re-assess their path and take a step back and start again.

That is, was, and continues to be my position and any illusion you maintain, contrived or mistaken, that an alteration has occurred there is exactly that. An illusion. And the Chinese whispers you refer to appear to occur solely in your head in an iterative process of distortion.

Olishi4 wrote: »

So everyone should answer to your selective argument? I told you before in relation to "body parts" that a masseuse uses their hands

And I told you before that the point and aim of the comparison is not negated by you ignoring it, and instead focusing on areas where the comparison does not (and was never actually intended to) hold. As long as you maintain that approach, you are going to talk A) nonsense and past me rather than with me.

And the deeper point behind the comparison was merely to focus on the discussion of how and why sex workers should be treated any differently to any other workers. If the comparison bothers you do much, or merely allows you to deflect the underlying question into a tangential discussion about the comparison rather than the reason for the comparison..... then by all means either come up with a comparison of your own..... or answer the question entirely without a comparison if you can. But the question still remains unanswered, much less by you.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Well maybe not all but a fairly important and significant few.

I notice however how this sentence from you answers the first half of what you quoted, but ENTIRELY ignores the second half. The second half being where your response would have required some actual substance rather than the large back pedal you offered in it's stead.

So I can but repeat the part you dodged and ignored. "Perhaps you can elaborate on the such as what, and how? Rather than the sweeping statements with no substance."

Olishi4 wrote: »

Ewww imagine feeling "compelled" to have sex with someone after noticing and feeling that way about those things you mention!

I think your sentence is by far too long. I think "Ewww imagine feeling "compelled" to have sex" is long enough. Anything after that is superfluous. And as I said before I genuinely feel for anyone who is in this line of work who does not want to be. And I genuinely feel for anyone who feels compelled, for whatever reason, to take on a client they do not want to take on.

But I once again have to clarify that with what I wrote just above. I feel EQUALLY sympathetic for anyone in that situation in any career path. If a freelance masseur shows up at a clients location, desperate for the money the contract will bring, and they find there a morbidly obese sweaty BO sufferer who also suffers from piles and fungal toe nails and other issues...... and they feel compelled to serve this client anyway because they need the money..... then my heart goes strongly out to them.

If a cleaner desperate for work ends up working on a premises where the staff in the building delight in spraying the bowl, toilet seat, walls and floor with their urine and he or she has to perform their job while spending the whole day trying to control their gag reflex, I feel for them.

I hate living in a world where ANYONE hates their job. But that is the reality of the world we live in. The only thing that appears to differ MOST of what I write on this thread from MOST of what you write on it.... is that you wish to specifically elevate your concerns for sex workers OVER that of anyone else in a job that they hate, traumatizes them, disgusts them, or horrifies them.

And I do not do that. And I also do not feel a Nanny State should be doing that for them either. I do not think we should be removing the option of sex work from people who genuinely want to make that choice. And I do not feel making the work illegal or taboo offers any utility or help or benefit from the people financially or otherwise compelled into that work regardless of the law.

Olishi4 wrote: »

But the reasons why they might not want to work are very different here.

Leave the goal posts where they are thanks. The question was what should they do if they do not want to work for a few weeks. And I answered that. Now you are shifting away from the question and answer by discussing the REASONS they might not want to work for a few weeks. Sure, the reasons may differ, but my answer remains the same.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Oh no he had no problem consenting to and facilitating a dangerous sexual act. He was happy to get paid. You think others don't have "nonsense interpretations"?

I do not recall even the remotest suggestion that that is what I think, no. I am well aware that people will accept contracts that they do not want to accept because they want the money. I never said otherwise. But doing so under the mantra "It is my job so I have to do it" is a nonsense. And it remains a nonsense regardless of whether 1 person says it, or 1000.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Yes i have a great idea. We could get all sex workers certified, document client appointments, dates, times, names, age, specific client requests etc. As part of training, sex workers should be encouraged to document their work like a little black book, right? Im sure clients would have no problem with workplace accidents reported. Why would they? It's just a service.

I am not seeing you establish any of that AS a great idea. You just declared it to be so.

As I said I myself remain open minded on the issue as to how it should be done. There are arguments for and against making it compulsory (such as a license) or optional (such as a quality accreditation system).

What either of those would entail is also a useful discussion to have. It would appear that periodic medical evaluation would be the most obvious first thing to include. But even there the discussion would be deep. How often would it be? What would it include? How would it be financed? Entirely by the sex worker? Subsidized in some way?

Further it needs to be discussed how compliance with this standard would be communicated to the punter.

It is a massively deep and complex area of discourse...... not justified at all by the kind of snide sarcasm you employ in your "great idea"....... and mostly tangential at best to the majority of what is being discussed here on the thread. But I am happy to entertain and discuss ideas on it as I find it interesting myself. go through the aspects of your "great idea" for example and explore the pros and cons you see in each element.

Olishi4

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea an MO of skipping over posts is quite common around here, it is nothing new to me. I guess I can just be glad internally that I am not that kind of person myself. Though I fully expect there is a not insignificant number of people who genuinely wish I was .

Cant say I've noticed that myself. In my experience, most people respond when a post is worthy of one I would say, be aware that posters may not respond or may make an effort to shorten down a response to a very lengthy reply post in order to reduce a Vicky Pollard style "yeah but, no but" conversation and an attempt to bring about clearer and more straight talking discussion throughout the thread.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I notice however how this sentence from you answers the first half of what you quoted, but ENTIRELY ignores the second half. The second half being where your response would have required some actual substance rather than the large back pedal you offered in it's stead.

So I can but repeat the part you dodged and ignored. "Perhaps you can elaborate on the such as what, and how? Rather than the sweeping statements with no substance.".

I didn't feel the need to elaborate. I'll humour you to a certain extent but I don't see the need to spoonfeed every point.

I'll give you one very important workplace right though. Sexual harassment. For example and there are many, if a sex worker insists to the client, "I don't kiss during the session" but a client continuously tries to kiss her. Is he guilty of sexual harrassment?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Leave the goal posts where they are thanks. The question was what should they do if they do not want to work for a few weeks. And I answered that. Now you are shifting away from the question and answer by discussing the REASONS they might not want to work for a few weeks. Sure, the reasons may differ, but my answer remains the same. .

No you didn't answer that really. You said that freelance workers would just take time off and that some just do get on with the job. My question originally was "what if they need the money?" It suggests inadvertently to sex workers to have sex and just get on with it. I asked, can you treat sex like that in terms of work?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is a massively deep and complex area of discourse...... .

Yes it is, we agree on that. Not so simple as "just legalise it, it's better for everyone"

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

Cant say I've noticed that myself. In my experience, most people respond when a post is worthy of one

Ah yes, another common thing I see all the time is the kind of cop out excuses people give for dodging answering posts. "I could not be bothered to" or "Your post was not worth replying to" are common ones. But generally this is done by people who want to skip over one thing they can not rebut, and reply to something you wrote later.

It usually goes hand in hand with the kind of person who declare they do not want to speak with you on that subject any more.... but then later very much do.... often on the same thread. In fact once I tongue in cheek coined what I called "Nozzferrahhtoos first law of forum posting" which states "The probability of a user responding to you on a topic goes UP in proportion to the number of indications they have offered that they will not do so". And I have been surprised ever since how often that law has been validated, given it was a joke at the time.

A case in point is this nonsense....

Olishi4 wrote: »

I didn't feel the need to elaborate.

.... where you made a vast sweeping generalization. When asked for examples you back pedaled the hyperbolic generalization massively from "all" to "few"........... but still did not offer the examples. When asked AGAIN for the examples it is STRAIGHT BACK to the "Could not be bothered" rhetoric once again.

I suspect, though I am open to be proven otherwise, then when that MO is employed often enough the ONLY result in the minds of most readers is an erosion of YOUR credibility. That people are going to simply start suspecting that when you claim something, you actually HAVE no back up for it and the "I can not be bothered to spoon feed you" routine is just a cop out attempt to cover up that fact.

Olishi4 wrote: »

"I don't kiss during the session" but a client continuously tries to kiss her. Is he guilty of sexual harrassment?

That is not an example of what I asked for an example of. I wanted an example of "goes against all the customer and employee rights" but here you are basically saying "Well we have laws of sexual harrasement..... how do you think they can or should apply".

So rather than giving an example of "going against" rights you are instead bring up (quite interesting) cases of "Well how do we implement the rights they should have in this case??".

Actually what you describe is not really sexual harassment as I understand it. In any other work place situation if you tried to force kisses on someone you have gone beyond the realm of harassment and into the realm of assault. So your particular example is itself problematic.

That said however.... that the client is basically committing an assault rather than a harassment..... what you describe would also tend into the area of breach of contract, rather than sexual harassment. They entered into their client-service contract on the understanding kissing was not included, and the client is then insisting on a service never agreed to.

So as I said these are interesting legal and moral issues that do indeed need to be hashed out. But an example of "going against rights" it is not. As I said I would be wary of conflating "How does this right apply in this context" to "It goes against that right".

Olishi4 wrote: »

No you didn't answer that really.

Except yes I did. You not liking the answer, or wishing to pretend it is not there, is not going to reach out and modify reality. The answer is there in black and white for all to see.

And the answer is easy to understand. Quite simply MANY people in freelance work decide to stop working for some time. Either for a holiday or other reasons such as health. And my answer, whether you like the answer or not, is that I see no reason why Freelance Sex workers should be any different.

Olishi4 wrote: »

My question originally was "what if they need the money?" It suggests inadvertently to sex workers to have sex and just get on with it. I asked, can you treat sex like that in terms of work?

Again I do not see why not. Anyone who CHOOSES to go freelance ALSO chooses to go into work knowing that they might, for financial reasons, have to work when they do not want to. Or that work might not come when they do want to.

I faced the same choice myself as a programmer. I realized that going freelance meant I would earn SIGNIFICANTLY more for the kind of work I do. Sometimes as much as 500-600% more.

But I also realized it came with the risks that work might not come in when I wanted or needed it. Or that work might come in when I otherwise did not want to do it. Such as when my children are on school leave I might not be able to take my holidays at the same time as theirs.

So in the end I opted to stay in full time employment with flexible holidays and a pay not 500% bigger than I am on.

Why should sex work be any different? I do not see a reason. Though I think I DO see why you keep bringing it up.

It is an attempt, I suspect (and I generally try not to assume what a persons position is, in favor of letting them tell me what their position is, but the issue of getting specific substance out of you rather than generalities and vagueness has left me little other choice), to make people feel emotionally comfortable about the idea someone might have to have sex when someone does not really want to have sex.

I am guessing you think this makes some point about "consent" because you want to indicate that in essence this is sex without consent in such specific cases. But I think that is an error of where you place the consent. I think the worker has already consented to that risk when they entered into the freelance work of this type in the first place. ANYONE entering into freelance work.... nothing specifically to do with the sex industry..... should do so in the full awareness that the work can make you a slave to taking jobs where and when they arise.... and you can often sacrifice some of your autonomy in terms of who you work for and when because financial constraints curtail your options.

But again this is the choice for the person entering into free lance work. Not, I feel, the choice of a nanny state who want to make that choice for you.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Yes it is, we agree on that. Not so simple as "just legalise it, it's better for everyone"

Yes, which is why.... to my knowledge.... I have never said or even implied that it is that simple. Anywhere. Ever. But by all means correct me on that if I have and I will happily retract or correct the error.

It is a complex issue. Just about every issue around human sexuality IS complex.

But I have looked for arguments and reasons NOT to legalize it and I have not seen any. Least of all on this thread or from your good self.

And I have looked at the concerns people have about the sex industry. Genuine concerns that I share. About trafficking. About STDs. About worker safety on the job. Peoples attitudes towards such workers. People being in the industry who want out of it. Worker rights. How our police resources are spent on the industry. Pension and medical insurance. The list goes on.

But I feel for many reasons that in EVERY one of those cases a legal regulated industry is a better way to address those concerns than an illegal underground one.

So I think the answer IS a simple one. Implementation of that answer however is deep, complex, delicate and highly interesting.

smacl

Olishi4 wrote: »

My question originally was "what if they need the money?" It suggests inadvertently to sex workers to have sex and just get on with it. I asked, can you treat sex like that in terms of work?

Sex workers aren't in a unique position in terms of having to do something many of us would find deeply unpleasant or dangerous to their physical or mental health in order to make money, e.g. prison officer, sewerage worker or soldier. Whether a person can cope with this type of work is very much down to the individual, some can, many can't. The big difference as I see it between sex work and the other examples I've given is the uncontrolled environment and the criminality that go with it. If you remove these, what specifically separates it from other unpleasant and/or risky forms of employment?

Olishi4

smacl wrote: »

Sex workers aren't in a unique position in terms of having to do something many of us would find deeply unpleasant or dangerous to their physical or mental health in order to make money, e.g. prison officer, sewerage worker or soldier. Whether a person can cope with this type of work is very much down to the individual, some can, many can't. The big difference as I see it between sex work and the other examples I've given is the uncontrolled environment and the criminality that go with it. If you remove these, what specifically separates it from other unpleasant and/or risky forms of employment?

I've given a lot of examples of why they are in a unique and a specific vulnerable position but if you don't understand them, that's fine. Just because jobs exist that bare some (but are also very much lacking in) similarities is not justification to promote this as a viable career choice.

Are you taking it as a given that legislation definitely reduces criminality miraculously? We've seen in other countries where this does not necessarily happen and does not reduce stigmas either. Making it more open wouldn't definitely stop people from doing it illegally. Even from a client's perspective, theyd mostly want alot of discretion for personal reasons and may be more inclined to visit illegal sex workers if they felt the service was too transparent or was linked back to them. You also run the risk of giving pimps more power.

What does a controlled working environment really consist of here in relation to our other working environments and can you incorporate them in this industry realistically? Training? Customer/employee rights? etc.

I said before that I'm not against legalisation totally but I think legalizing, and controlling it is not as easy or as beneficial as it may sound to some.

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

Just because jobs exist that bare some (but are also very much lacking in) similarities is not justification to promote this as a viable career choice.

Nor is it a reason for it NOT being a viable career choice. I usually start from the axiom of "innocent until proven guilty".

So for me the interest lies in finding reasons for it NOT to be allowed or given as a career choice. Not to find reasons why it SHOULD as if it alone has to justify itself in ways that other career paths don't.

So before anything else we should at least hammer out the standard there. Do careers have to justify themselves before they can be considered valid, or can we consider all careers valid unless they can be indicted in some way?

I choose the latter, consistently. Perhaps you choose the former, be it consistently for all careers (which seems unworkable) or merely selectively.... which I decried before for what I think is good reason.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Are you taking it as a given that legislation definitely reduces criminality miraculously?

Well pedantically of course it does. If you stop something being illegal, then the people doing it are not doing anything illegal, so you have automatically by default "reduced criminality".

But outside pedantry I think we can safely say yes, that is reduces criminality or at least gives us the tools by which we can tackle criminality.

For example most people buy their cigarettes over the counter rather than from the black market cheaper alternatives. Other people often buy free range eggs over battery hen eggs.

In general I think you find that when consumers are given a transparent way to select ethical and quality products, they do so, even when they have to pay slightly more. So legislation and regulation very much is a path to reducing criminality. When done right of course. And I do not see any miracles involved there at all.

Take the Escort Ireland website for example. I believe it is one of the prime sources people use when sourcing sex workers. There are various filters on the website where you can filter sex works on service types, age, language spoken, nationality, cost and much more.

Were there an accreditation of some sort, obtained periodically by conforming to certain standards, medical tests and so forth..... it could further be a filter on that website. "Show me only escorts with XYZ standard". And I have little doubt that many, if not most, people would select that.... even if the escorts were slightly more expensive.... because it offered some level of assurance about medical and other issues.

So yes I would take it at a given that certain types of regulation and legislation and procedures can reduce criminality. It just depends HOW it is done. You point out that in some countries it has not worked out great. I presume that means in SOME it has? That is good data. Data we can use to see what worked, what didn't, and what can be tried.

Did any of those countries demand periodic medical tests to receive a license or quality assurance mark for example? Were any of the tests structured or geared to spot people trafficked or who might not be mentally stable enough for the career path?

I tend to find it quite lazy to simply say "Legislation was tried and it did not work". WHAT was tried. WHERE was it tried. WHAT was implemented. HOW was it enforced. WHAT exactly did not work? WHAT standard of measurement for "worked" or "did not work" was used? There is likely BOOKS worth of material behind just those questions alone that is not justified by anyone who might feel like handwaving a "Tried that, did not work" approach to the issue.

Olishi4 wrote: »

I said before that I'm not against legalisation totally but I think legalizing, and controlling it is not as easy or as beneficial as it may sound to some.

Agreed. As I said in the last post above I see nothing easy about it. But not being easy does not A) suggest it should not be done or negate any of the arguments of why it should be done.

There are all kinds of reasons why doing it right is difficult.

smacl

Olishi4 wrote: »

Are you taking it as a given that legislation definitely reduces criminality miraculously?

Nothing miraculous. I'm simply making the assumption that the current status quo is unacceptable, that change is required, and that legislation is going to be a necessary part of that change.

We've seen in other countries where this does not necessarily happen and does not reduce stigmas either. Making it more open wouldn't definitely stop people from doing it illegally. Even from a client's perspective, theyd mostly want alot of discretion for personal reasons and may be more inclined to visit illegal sex workers if they felt the service was too transparent or was linked back to them. You also run the risk of giving pimps more power.

As per my previous post, we've seen various forms of legislation fail in other countries, including the so called Nordic model which sex workers are on record as saying it makes their life more dangerous. This is neither an argument for taking on the route followed by any of these countries, nor for doing nothing. My feeling is any pragmatic solution needs to involve those operating as sex workers as well as legislators and the police.

What does a controlled working environment really consist of here in relation to our other working environments and can you incorporate them in this industry realistically? Training? Customer/employee rights? etc.

I said before that I'm not against legalisation totally but I think legalizing, and controlling it is not as easy or as beneficial as it may sound to some.

Studying all the sources of danger that exist for the sex worker and their clients systematically and devising ways to reduce or eliminate them. Useful training for existing sex workers would probably include being aware of all the risks and how best to deal with them. The issue I have with the Nordic model is that it seeks to exclude sex workers from the process and is essentially there to be a stepping stone towards prohibition. That's fine and dandy, but the net effect seems to be driving prostitution underground and making it more dangerous for all involved. Pragmatically, I think we need tolerate it on the basis that we're highly unlikely to eradicate it, and this includes working to remove the stigma attached to it.

Olishi4

smacl wrote: »

Studying all the sources of danger that exist for the sex worker and their clients systematically and devising ways to reduce or eliminate them. Useful training for existing sex workers would probably include being aware of all the risks and how best to deal with them.

So far we are going to have to deal with client boundaries/etiquette (i.e. clients randomly knocking on sex workers door, people who think its ok to randomly proposition the sex worker), clarification of what constitutes sexual harassment in this workplace environment, stigmas and the difficulty in removing them and the effects they have on sex worker and their close ones, training, education on what sexual acts are safe/dangerous, std testing..compulsory? (btw what happens when a sex worker discovers they have an std and they have likely caught from or spread it to their clients in the workplace? Stop them from working and keep schtum? Is there documentation to trace back clients to make them aware?), would clients provide personal details?,normalise the work and remove stigmas without glamorising it, accidents at work, internal risk assessments? Pimps who abuse the system, tax evasion etc

That isn't even going near studying the sources of danger. That's just random stuff from the thread.

Another one, where are sex workers to work? Brothels or like those parlour girls who we spoke about earlier in the thread who averaged at 25 clients a week? Is a free lance sex worker allowed to work from home when children are present in the house?

smacl

No doubt if you dug deeper you'd get many more. You'd get more still if you approached the task systematically with a group including a number of sex workers, police, social workers and medical people who had real life experience of surrounding the bulk of the substantive issues. Only by itemising all the problems can you start to approach a workable solution. Throwing a bunch of them together in a paragraph just reminds us its a complex problem. Saying, 'ah sure its all beyond us, lets just copy the Swedes and give ourselves a clap on the back' seems like a total cop out.

Olishi4

smacl wrote: »

No doubt if you dug deeper you'd get many more. You'd get more still if you approached the task systematically with a group including a number of sex workers, police, social workers and medical people who had real life experience of surrounding the bulk of the substantive issues. Only by itemising all the problems can you start to approach a workable solution. Throwing a bunch of them together in a paragraph just reminds us its a complex problem. Saying, 'ah sure its all beyond us, lets just copy the Swedes and give ourselves a clap on the back' seems like a total cop out.

Well you could say that it sounds like a cop out on the other side too.

Criminalizing something is not necessarily washing your hands of the situation. It's just another way of dealing with it. I said throughout the thread, that I myself was not sure what the right way is but some of the pro legislation views sound too far fetched as if travelling on some liberal bandwagon.

smacl

Olishi4 wrote: »

Well you could say that it sounds like a cop out on the other side too.

Criminalizing something is not necessarily washing your hands of the situation. It's just another way of dealing with it. I said throughout the thread, that I myself was not sure what the right way is but some of the pro legislation views sound too far fetched as if travelling on some liberal bandwagon.

You appear to be confusing the word legislation and legalisation there and in your previous posts. If anything, the liberal stance is about removing legislation. As for bandwagons, there seem to be quite a few moral and ethical ones rolling through this thread, and while they've plenty of baggage on board, none of them seem to be going anywhere useful.

Olishi4

smacl wrote: »

You appear to be confusing the word legislation and legalisation there and in your previous posts. .

Well you know what I meant so

smacl wrote: »

If anything, the liberal stance is about removing legislation. As for bandwagons, there seem to be quite a few moral and ethical ones rolling through this thread, and while they've plenty of baggage on board, none of them seem to be going anywhere useful.

Moral and ethics go hand in hand in the workplace and if you want this to be looked at like other professions then they should not be considered useless baggage.

smacl

Olishi4 wrote: »

Moral and ethics go hand in hand in the workplace and if you want this to be looked at like other professions then they should not be considered useless baggage.

True to an extent, but on the one hand you've been arguing on the basis of what is good for the sex worker whereas the moral issues raised here are about looking after the sensibilities of society. This is the problem with the Nordic model as well. Ostensibly it is there for the good of the sex worker, yet sex workers consider it makes their lives more dangerous and reduces their income. It aims for prohibition in the long term on that the basis that there is no place for prostitution in modern society, yet also fails on this score. I personally consider the Nordic model dishonest in that it has more to do with looking after the sensibilities of society than helping sex workers who might be in a precarious situation. If you have issues with prostitution on moral and ethical grounds that's fair enough, but that is very different to considering the welfare of sex workers.

Olishi4

smacl wrote: »

True to an extent, but on the one hand you've been arguing on the basis of what is good for the sex worker whereas the moral issues raised here are about looking after the sensibilities of society. This is the problem with the Nordic model as well. Ostensibly it is there for the good of the sex worker, yet sex workers consider it makes their lives more dangerous and reduces their income. It aims for prohibition in the long term on that the basis that there is no place for prostitution in modern society, yet also fails on this score. I personally consider the Nordic model dishonest in that it has more to do with looking after the sensibilities of society than helping sex workers who might be in a precarious situation. If you have issues with prostitution on moral and ethical grounds that's fair enough, but that is very different to considering the welfare of sex workers.

No smacl, I have argued for what is good for both the majority of sex workers and society and I have said that I do not know the right answer to that.

I have given specific, serious, realistic and very likely examples of many issues that could be faced and not easily or realistically legislated against such as a client continuously trying to kiss a sex worker even though he was told not to, I was basically told "oh we'l have to work on legislation for that, interesting". Realistically that's going to be very hard to manage and is a sex worker likely to report "well I told him not to kiss me while we were having sex and he kept doing it"! Probably not, still going to feel harassed though as in any other profession.......

I have spoke about how we can't just get rid of stigmas and have been told "we'l get rid of stigmas then itl be grand". Is a man who doesn't want his wife/daughter/son to work as a sex worker just blinded by stigmas or does he just not want his family put at risk and are you suggesting that's something we need to change?.....

I have also explained the possibilities of increasing supply and demand and glamorising the industry and giving potential workers an unrealistic view of the profession which it seems a lot of people already have. Also increasing power to pimps and how making the industry too transparent can also push it further underground because clients and sex workers themself will often not want to be known......

It seems to me that people who portray a future full of happy sex workers in some idealistic and complete controlled environment are just arguing for a small minority of people. People who are definitely in the industry by choice, have a choice to pick another profession. People who are not there by choice, need more help to get out of it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

So far we are going to have to deal with client boundaries/etiquette (i.e. clients randomly knocking on sex workers door

We? That is not for us to deal with. It is for the client to deal with. Just like a doctor on my road who gets people randomly knocking in with sniffles would have to deal with it. It has nothing to do with society.... "we"..... in legislation and regulation of the industry.

However this and the other things you list.... I keep saying this to you, often without reply but....... so what? There are requirements and difficulties and even likely unique intricacies to deal with here. We know this already. So what is the point of bringing it up unless, as I fear, you are merely pushing a form of "Oh it is all so difficult lets not even try" hands in the air style narrative?

Olishi4 wrote: »

(btw what happens when a sex worker discovers they have an std and they have likely caught from or spread it to their clients in the workplace? Stop them from working and keep schtum? Is there documentation to trace back clients to make them aware?)

There are certainly ways to achieve that with the application of only a little imagination and ingenuity. If it were decided to be a priority. And those ways would maintain both client and worker confidentiality to some degree.

Olishi4 wrote: »

normalise the work and remove stigmas without glamorising it

I am sure, again with the application of a little ingenuity and imagination, we could find at least ways to attempt to remove stigmas. I am not sure what you mean exactly by "without glamorizing it" though. Or why that is even a requirement exactly. In what way do you fear it being glamorized exactly, and why is avoiding what you describe a priority. I realize, contrary to what I wrote before, that I might be seeking specifics off you which I already said are nigh impossible to get. But this one peaked my interest enough to try.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Another one, where are sex workers to work?

Where someone works would vary greatly I imagine like much free lance work does. Like your "clients knocking on doors out of hours" routine, I am not sure why for the most part it would be or should be our concern though when speaking about law and regulation. You appear to be intent on raising a lot of concerns that would be outside the purview of legislation and regulation of the industry.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Well you could say that it sounds like a cop out on the other side too.

Of course you could SAY it. But like saying "umpty dumpth spurgeddly goo gag" the question is whether while exercising your ability to say it, would you merely be saying complete nonsense.

Because there is a CHASM of difference between the cop out narrative of "Oh look I can list a few issues and intricacies that will make the endeavor difficult so lets throw up our hands and not even try" and "Lets work closely with sex workers, the police, the government, the employee rights groups, and more to systematically identify, prioritize and deal with the issues at hand, and attempt to formulate a way forward that addresses those intricacies to the best of our ability".

One is certainly a cop out, the other is doubling down ready to do the hard work and do it right. So your comparison of the two under that light certainly is of the level of "umpty dumpth spurgeddly goo gag"

Olishi4 wrote: »

some of the pro legislation views sound too far fetched as if travelling on some liberal bandwagon.

You have not explained which ones are far fetched or why. You just tend to list a few intricacies, make a few vague comments that I am unable to get specifics about off you when I try, and little else.

What is far fetched about making it legal entirely?

What is far fetched about regulating and taxing it like any free lance work?

What is far fetched about maintaining a compulsory periodic licensing or voluntary accreditation standard (or both)?

What is far fetched about the ideal of, where and when possible, treating this career choice the same way we treat any other?

What is far fetched about finding and implementing ways to combat the stigma around the industry?

Simply calling these things far fetched will not make them magically so and more than calling Donald Trump black will magically stop him being orange.

Olishi4 wrote: »

No smacl, I have argued for what is good for both the majority of sex workers and society

I am not sure you have argued any such thing. You have ASSERTED a few things for sure, but when queried on them you either back pedal or entirely ignore the question. Such as your comment that the industry goes against ALL of something, but when asked for examples you gave none but instead back pedaled "all" to "few".

So assertions aplenty for sure, but arguments.... not so much. The closest, as I said a couple of times above.... you have come to any form of argument is to list the intricacies specific to the industry that may (but in some of your examples not at all) have to be dealt with. But other than giving the impression that your position is one of "Too hard, dont try"..... it is not clear what you are arguing at all.

The rest of your rhetoric has not been specific arguments so much as listing things that are true IN GENERAL as if they are somehow magically only true here SPECIFICALLY. But I commented enough already on the selective application of arguments to one situation while ignoring them in others so probably no need to repeat that unless your response to this requires it.

Olishi4 wrote: »

I have given specific, serious, realistic and very likely examples of many issues that could be faced and not easily or realistically legislated against

Except the things you list either should not be legislated against at all (such as why do we need to worry about clients calling around out of hours, when we do not worry about that with doctors or masseurs) or already have laws related to them that we need only understand how we would apply them.

But again the things you list really do give the impression of this "Too hard, don't try" narrative that SEEMS to be dripping off every post you make.... be it your intention or not.

Further the things you list (like unwanted kissing for example) are ALREADY issues for sex workers who work in an underground semi legal industry. Sex workers in Ireland today ALREADY have that issue. So the relevance of your examples are curtailed by the fact that these are ALREADY issues we have to deal with. The question is can we better deal with them in the status quo, or can we better find tools to deal with them in a more regulated above board less stigmatized industry?

But when you list things that are ALREADY an issue as if they are somehow going to hamper progress on the question, then I am afraid it is red herrings for dinner all around. Pass the pepper.

Olishi4 wrote: »

I have spoke about how we can't just get rid of stigmas

Who is claiming we can "just" get rid of them? I have not seen many, if any, saying that. I think the people talking on the thread have made it perfectly clear they realize that removal of stigmatization is an ideal, but a hard slog. Again ignoring any "Too hard, lets not bother trying" narratives, the question becomes "Can we remove it in the current status quo, or are the tools a regulated and legal industry could provide a better potential for doing this".

But any move from illegal to legal is ALREADY an erosion of stigma. Because doing something illegal is already itself a source of stigma. It is only one battle in the war, but it is a nearly automatic one by definition.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Is a man who doesn't want his wife/daughter/son to work as a sex worker just blinded by stigmas or does he just not want his family put at risk and are you suggesting that's something we need to change?

Again you are pushing and stretching the boundaries of relevance to the limits here. Why the hell should we care, when doing the right thing at the level of law and industry, what some man wants for his daughter or not? How is it even relevant? The point is to legalize and regulate an industry, not to concern ones self about who wants to enter it, not enter it, or why. I have no more interest in whether a man wants his children to be a sex worker than I have about whether a woman wants her children to be soldiers. It is simply entirely and completely irrelevant to the whole enterprise.

Olishi4 wrote: »

I have also explained the possibilities of increasing supply and demand

Yet A) You have not shown any such thing will happen and that even if it did happen why this is a problem. Lets grant it as a given just for the benefit of discussion. Lets take it 100% a given that a legal and regulated industry is going to increase supply and demand 50%. That is there will be 50% more workers and 50% more men seeking to avail of it.

So even if that were true, and as I said you have not shown AT ALL that it is..... So what? Whats the problem?

Olishi4 wrote: »

Also increasing power to pimps

How would a legal and regulated industry give pimps MORE power than the current status quo? What kind of "power" do you mean, what form would it take, and why is it a bad thing?

smacl

Olishi4 wrote: »

It seems to me that people who portray a future full of happy sex workers in some idealistic and complete controlled environment are just arguing for a small minority of people.

You might want to point out exactly where I've talked a future full of happy sex workers, because I don't remember doing so. My argument is simply for improved safety for all concerned and reduced criminality.

People who are definitely in the industry by choice, have a choice to pick another profession. People who are not there by choice, need more help to get out of it.

Those who are not there by choice fall into two categories; trafficked people where people trafficking is already highly illegal and covered separately, and those who need the money to survive. For those that need the money to survive, the Nordic model doesn't provide the exit path you allude to as it doesn't provide an alternative form of income. According to sex workers, it simply makes their existing way of making money tougher and more dangerous. To my mind it is there for those trying to eradicate prostitution rather than those already involved in it, and as such seems dishonest to say it helps the sex worker.

Olishi4

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You appear to be intent on raising a lot of concerns that would be outside the purview of legislation and regulation

ye don't say! Are you for real?

smacl wrote: »

You might want to point out exactly where I've talked a future full of happy sex workers, because I don't remember doing so. My argument is simply for improved safety for all concerned and reduced criminality..

Ah would you stop. No one said that out straight but earlier in the thread, it was practically dismissed that the majority of sex workers are not in happy situations and just said outright that legalizing is the way to go without question.

smacl wrote: »

Those who are not there by choice fall into two categories; trafficked people where people trafficking is already highly illegal and covered separately, and those who need the money to survive.

No there's other categories. Those who were happy working, have made it a career choice and have decided "I can't do this for a while but it's my income so I'll have to do it anyway". Those who are happy with the actual profession as an ideal but are not protected like other jobs and are subject to harrasment and other "intricacies", apparently now thats what we are calling them Those who, if it were legalized and legislated, who started off happy but can't get out of it because of stigmas that are not so easily removed.

smacl wrote: »

For those that need the money to survive, the Nordic model doesn't provide the exit path you allude to as it doesn't provide an alternative form of income.

So if someone can't get another form of income and is struggling, the answer for them is to get into sex work or to stay in sex work? I'd rather invest in other ways to help them find an alternative. Create less stigmas for those to seek help and more support financially or through education.

smacl wrote: »

According to sex workers, it simply makes their existing way of making money tougher and more dangerous. To my mind it is there for those trying to eradicate prostitution rather than those already involved in it, and as such seems dishonest to say it helps the sex worker

And yet those who want it legal have no issues putting current sex workers up as poster boys in the long process of removing stigmas with some trial and error form of legislation. And do you believe everyone who wants it legalized has an honest motive and is concerned with helping the sex worker?

smacl

Olishi4 wrote: »

Ah would you stop. No one said that out straight but earlier in the thread, it was practically dismissed that the majority of sex workers are not in happy situations and just said outright that legalizing is the way to go without question.

Sounds like an argument for someone else so, as it doesn't refer to anything I've said.

No there's other categories. Those who were happy working, have made it a career choice and have decided "I can't do this for a while but it's my income so I'll have to do it anyway". Those who are happy with the actual profession as an ideal but are not protected like other jobs and are subject to harrasment and other "intricacies", apparently now thats what we are calling them Those who, if it were legalized and legislated, who started off happy but can't get out of it because of stigmas that are not so easily removed.

As someone who's been self employed for most of my working life, I'm also in the position where if I don't work, I don't get paid. Neither for that matter would I get the dole should I stop working, nor get any paid holidays nor sick days. This is the reality for all self employed people and most of us have no problem with it.

So if someone can't get another form of income and is struggling, the answer for them is to get into sex work or to stay in sex work? I'd rather invest in other ways to help them find an alternative. Create less stigmas for those to seek help and more support financially or through education.

Again, nothing unique to sex work here. Lots of people in shítty jobs they'd rather not do. Do you think they'd thank you by taking their jobs away, or are you going to find them other gainful employment as well?

And yet those who want it legal have no issues putting current sex workers up as poster boys in the long process of removing stigmas with some trial and error form of legislation. And do you believe everyone who wants it legalized has an honest motive and is concerned with helping the sex worker?

I'd guess the main motives behind legalisation are financial for those running brothels, safer working conditions for those carrying out sex work, and reduced crime and wasted police resources for wider society.

The main motive that seems apparent among those favouring the Nordic approach is that they find the idea of prostitution morally reprehensible, socially unacceptable and want it eliminated on that basis, while at the same time pretending to have the best interests of the sex worker at heart.

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

ye don't say! Are you for real?

Well that is about as blatant a non-reply as it gets. Though the quantity you have ignored and dodged is fast outweighing what you have replied to at this point.

Yes I am for real. This, last time I checked, was generally a legal discussion about prostitution. Yet all the concerns you raise about sex work are concerns that have NOTHING to do with law, and would likely be entirely outside the purview of either law or regulation on the sex industry were such things changed or established.

So....... what I keep pointing out time and time again on the thread..... it is entirely unclear what your point(s) actually are on the thread at all. I genuinely do not know at this point what your position is, what your point actually is, or where you are coming from. And all attempts to pin you down on ANY specifics end up in the "water off a ducks back" kind of area. And I am so glad to see another user use the phrase "nothing unique to sex work here" with you as I was genuinely starting to wonder if it was only me noticing this about your..... "points".

Take for example the point, which you make again in this very post, about freelance sex workers who do not want to work (for some reason or other, you have not specified) for a period of time but kinda have to because they need the money. Great. Ok. But.... so what? Whats the point of bringing this up? How is it relevant? Where are you going with that?

professore

I think this whole topic is one the Ladies Lounge should discuss too, as this is largely a women's issue (from the prostitute's point of view at least).

BigDuffman

professore wrote: »

I think this whole topic is one the Ladies Lounge should discuss too, as this is largely a women's issue (from the prostitute's point of view at least).

Ah yes because the majority of those purchasing sex are female?! I'd argue its largely male issue. Irish women discussing prostitution is obviously important but its not as important as Irish men (aka the actual customers) discussing it. If you want to address any social issue it starts with understanding the end user.

nozzferrahhtoo

^ He very clearly said "from the prostitutes point of view at least" so the "Ah yes because the majority of those purchasing sex are female?!" snidery was probably unwarranted. Clearly the majority of consumers are male. Clearly a significant % of providers are female however. And when it comes to laws around prostitution it is their rights and their safety that comes strongly into most discussions on the matter. As the last 20 or so pages of this thread show

Actually I see no utility AT ALL in sitting back and debating over which gender is "more important". As if men are somehow more important then women. The issue of prostitution is relevant to all of us, regardless of gender, and regardless of whether you are the consumer or the provider.

BigDuffman

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually I see no utility AT ALL in sitting back and debating over which gender is "more important". As if men are somehow more important then women

Steady on there friend. I've at no stage suggested that men are more important than women.

It's an issue whereby it is obviously important for all to discuss. But very important for males to discuss, for reasons which I have already suggested.

There is at times a strong need to look at things from a specific gender perspective in order to understand a problem and create a solution.

I will however concede that I did miss the "too" in the original comment "I think this whole topic is one the Ladies Lounge should discuss too, as this is largely a women's issue". For that I'll apologize to Professore, as it entirely changes the tone.

professore

BigDuffman wrote: »

Steady on there friend. I've at no stage suggested that men are more important than women.

It's an issue whereby it is obviously important for all to discuss. But very important for males to discuss, for reasons which I have already suggested.

There is at times a strong need to look at things from a specific gender perspective in order to understand a problem and create a solution.

I will however concede that I did miss the "too" in the original comment "I think this whole topic is one the Ladies Lounge should discuss too, as this is largely a women's issue". For that I'll apologize to Professore, as it entirely changes the tone.

Yeah I was in no way saying it shouldn't be discussed here! Quite the contrary. Thanks for the correction Duffman.

nozzferrahhtoo

BigDuffman wrote: »

Steady on there friend. I've at no stage suggested that men are more important than women.

I was referring to your comment that men discussing it is more important than women discussing it. I simply do not see that A) That is true or the utility of that approach or C) that this is how people behave in the discussion given almost the entirety of this thread so far, for example, has been about the women working in the field and how many laws and regulations put in place actually silence their voice when it is their voice we should be hearing.

BigDuffman wrote: »

There is at times a strong need to look at things from a specific gender perspective in order to understand a problem and create a solution.

I am not entirely convinced that A) that is true or that even if it is true that THIS is one of those cases. However even if I grant both A and B there, I think there is a difference between saying that there is utility in looking at an issue from specific and varying perspectives..... and declaring that one of those perspectives is "more important" than another.

And whatever my issues with the former may be, it is more the latter I was commenting on. I am not sure what utility or truth or even meaning lies in the phrase "This is a largely male issue" either. I see this as a human societal issue that is in no way gender skewed at all.