Who Are The People Buying Sex This Way?

Deebles McBeebles

Jamari Lemon Shrimp wrote: »

Oh I'm not arguing for or against legalisation/decriminalisation. I'd have leaned towards same before but not sure now, however I don't agree with criminalisation of it either .

Sorry I didn't mean to attribute that argument to you in particular.

Jamari Lemon Shrimp wrote: »

I'm just arguing against the pigheaded denial of the problems for women in poverty/with addictions.

I think in a perfect world there would be sexual services actually - but not having to be resorted to for income by people at rock bottom with no other option, and vulnerability to dangerous folk.

That's the ideal of course, anyone who wouldn't want the women providing this service to be looked after shouldn't be listened to. I just don't see how it remaining taboo or illegal could possibly result in that outcome.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

just look at the porn available on regular sites like p0rn hub etc.
Seems a lot of it is degrading stuff like 5 guys coming all over one girl , this has to effect how guys think, very worrying with new generations growing up on this stuff.

Why does it "have to" effect how guys think. Porn is just the new moral panic, it was rock in the 60's and 70's, video games in the 90's and early 2000's and now it's porn.

I'd guess that a minority of men actually like the idea of bukkake in real life.

Zorya

Jerry Banana wrote: »

Lots of people in poverty work jobs they don't like to make ends meat, should we criminalise people working as a waiter or a fisherman?

Freudian slip

Gimme A Pound

Jerry Banana wrote: »

Lots of people in poverty work jobs they don't like to make ends meat, should we criminalise people working as a waiter or a fisherman?

It's relentless.

Mods, change the title to "The false equivalences thread" and be done with it!

Church on Tuesday

[QUOTE=Jerry Banana;110265360]Lots of people in poverty work jobs they don't like to make ends meat, should we criminalise people working as a waiter or a fisherman?[/QUOTE]

Ah here, you can't possibly equate working a ****ty minimum wage job to being trafficked into the sex industry because you're a damaged and desperate vulnerable person.

cgcsb

The argument that it should be illegal because the only reason people do it is because of poverty is one that advocates of banning it need to expand on. So you have this person in poverty, they opt for prostitution as a way out, and you want to take that escape option away from them?
Will you offer alternative escape options or just say, good enough for ya?
Will other things be banned? how about cleaning toilets?

Zorya

cgcsb wrote: »

The argument that it should be illegal because the only reason people do it is because of poverty is one that advocates of banning it need to expand on. So you have this person in poverty, they opt for prostitution as a way out, and you want to take that escape option away from them?
Will you offer alternative escape options or just say, good enough for ya?
Will other things be banned? how about cleaning toilets?

It's a new take on the saviour complex, I'll give you that. Ride someone who has no passport, no pay, can't leave the building, and who is compelled to service dozens a day, but it is okay cos you are saving them from poverty. Coolio.

Gimme A Pound

Jerry Banana wrote: »

My point is perfectly valid, it demonstrates that just because a job provides a means of escaping poverty does not mean it should be criminalised. You will need to do more than repeating one soundbite to challenge my point.

I'm not sure you understand what a false equivalence is so I've provided the description below.

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency".

As you will now understand, it is not a false equivalence to apply the same argument to different scenarios. Differing opposing arguments must be used.

Hmmmm, you'll have to show me where I said it should be criminalised...

But anyway, yeah it is a false equivalence because being a waiter is NOTHING like the situations Zorya wrote about. You said you didn't compare the two... you did though - it's exactly what you did. Being a waiter is actually an ok job.

Fisherman though - extremely dangerous trawler fishing like The Deadliest Catch... yeah that's more comparable.

What's being highlighted is mistreatment in a particular industry - not the profession itself. Instead of saying we are saying stuff which we aren't saying, downplaying, dismissing, deflecting, projecting, protesting too much, making ineffective comparisons, how about what's actually being discussed? Why would a person take issue with these problems being discussed...

Gimme A Pound

cgcsb wrote: »

The argument that it should be illegal because the only reason people do it is because of poverty is one that advocates of banning it need to expand on. So you have this person in poverty, they opt for prostitution as a way out, and you want to take that escape option away from them?
Will you offer alternative escape options or just say, good enough for ya?
Will other things be banned? how about cleaning toilets?

Why would they say (those who advocate criminalising/banning prostitution that is) "good enough for ya" and why would other things such as cleaning toilets be banned? I should hope cleaning toilets wouldn't be banned!

Those hypotheses are silly and unnecessary.

Grayson

Jamari Lemon Shrimp wrote: »

It's relentless.

Mods, change the title to "The false equivalences thread" and be done with it!

Not really though. I worked as a care attendant. I've had sh1t, piss and vomit all over me at this stage. It's a thoroughly disgusting job. However it's not viewed badly.

Likewise people are in jobs where they may be distressed and depressed, but those are legal. I know people who've had to take leave from call centre jobs because they genuinely needed to. I've also known someone who was perfectly happy working in an abattoir.

The only criteria should be if the person made the decision of their own volition.
And ideally it would be that they wanted to do the job and weren't just doing it for the money but can we actually legislate for that?

Mrsmum

Grayson wrote: »

Not really though. I worked as a care attendant. I've had sh1t, piss and vomit all over me at this stage. It's a thoroughly disgusting job. However it's not viewed badly.

Likewise people are in jobs where they may be distressed and depressed, but those are legal. I know people who've had to take leave from call centre jobs because they genuinely needed to. I've also known someone who was perfectly happy working in an abattoir.

The only criteria should be if the person made the decision of their own volition.
And ideally it would be that they wanted to do the job and weren't just doing it for the money but can we actually legislate for that?

But isn't that the whole point of this thread. Clearly a trafficked person doesn't make "the decision of their own volition". They are sold many times every day without their consent and they are bought and raped by people who are unconcerned if they have consented. Abuse is their life.

Zorya

Grayson wrote: »

Not really though. I worked as a care attendant. I've had sh1t, piss and vomit all over me at this stage. It's a thoroughly disgusting job. However it's not viewed badly.

Likewise people are in jobs where they may be distressed and depressed, but those are legal. I know people who've had to take leave from call centre jobs because they genuinely needed to. I've also known someone who was perfectly happy working in an abattoir.

The only criteria should be if the person made the decision of their own volition.
And ideally it would be that they wanted to do the job and weren't just doing it for the money but can we actually legislate for that?

I worked as a public toilets cleaner for half a year. Please don't traffic me into sex slavery because I have got the gist of crappy jobs....

Austria!

This is a very ideologised subject where reliable data is hard to come by, even if you made an honest effort, and many don't even do that.


And there doesn't seem to be any subject where people so uncritically process information as with sex work.

Zorya wrote: »

By the end of the opening day many of the women had collapsed from exhaustion, pain, injuries, and infections, including painful rashes and fungal infections that had spread from their genitals down their legs.

So in 1 day these women acquired a fungal infection and that infection then managed to spread down their legs? I don't think that happened.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

in a LEGAL sex work environment you will get more REPORTS of crimes. Which is what we want! This is a good thing!

It's a possibility, but to say reports of crime going up IS a good thing.??? I get the feeling that if reports of crime went down that would also be a good thing for you.

Zorya wrote: »

Most prostitutes are sex slaves, not sex workers. It's just a fact.

That is no where near a fact.

4068ac1elhodqr

Aside from all the rights and wrongs about this 'industry' (of sorts),
- what's gonna happen when all the 'sexy-sex-lady-robots' arrive, and take all their jobs?

ILoveYourVibes

Siena Shallow Speakeasy wrote: »

Aside from all the rights and wrongs about this 'industry' (of sorts),
- what's gonna happen when all the 'sexy-sex-lady-robots' arrive, and take all their jobs?

I for one welcome our sexy lady robots.

You can't tell them apart!

Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave

Then we can set the people free.

Gimme A Pound

Grayson wrote: »

Not really though. I worked as a care attendant. I've had sh1t, piss and vomit all over me at this stage. It's a thoroughly disgusting job.

No, yes really. That poster mentioned nothing about care attendants. They said waiter (nonsensical) and fisherman (can be hazardous, fair enough).

However it's not viewed badly.

Likewise people are in jobs where they may be distressed and depressed, but those are legal. I know people who've had to take leave from call centre jobs because they genuinely needed to. I've also known someone who was perfectly happy working in an abattoir.

Deflect deflect. It really is irritating. Someone asked why I said there is issue being taken here with mistreatment in the industry getting discussed here... eh, because it's repeatedly deflected and whatabouted and dismissed and downplayed... that's why!

How can anyone seriously compare intimate sexual acts and a controlling pimp with a sh1t call centre job? Or even with being a carer? (I have no doubt that is still a very tough job - no disputing it). Things have changed where I work and I absolutely hate my job. I feel a bit depressed there at times tbh, but how insulting of me would it be to compare myself to trafficked slaves or people who have no choice but prostitution because of circumstances (and this dependency being exploited). I mean the shyte of saying "oh well most people who are poor have to do crap jobs" as if all crappy jobs involve sexual intimacy with a stranger. If someone actually wants to go on the game to get out of poverty, and not out of just desperation and addiction, well I'm not talking about them.

It's so incredibly dishonest.

It's because it's sex though - and everything to do with sex must be viewed as totally fine, in case god forbid you might look a bit non liberated.

If this thread were about abused and exploited construction workers, there'd be no genius posts about "well lots of men work in construction", because that's just stupid. It would be roundly condemned, and rightly so.

Someone asked why other types of exploitative work isn't discussed - well I'd say that's why: there's no discussion to be had; everyone agrees on it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Austria! wrote: »

It's a possibility, but to say reports of crime going up IS a good thing.??? I get the feeling that if reports of crime went down that would also be a good thing for you.

The idea is that we want to reduce the number of crimes actually happening. The number of actual crimes going DOWN is a good thing.

One of the ways we can achieve that is if the number of crimes being REPORTED goes up. If 100 crimes happened last year and 20 got reported, and then 100 crimes happened this year and 60 got reported then yes.... this would be a good thing.

Zorya wrote: »

Thanks Joe, that is it. The widespread nature of it confuses me, because for it to be so proftable it means regular ordinary people have sex with sex slaves. How does one do that and feel ok?

Why do people smoke when they know they are likely to get cancer? Why do people go for adultery when they know it is likely they will get caught. Why do people drink and drive when they know it could end their lives or careers, or that of someone else? Why do people go out without sunscreen on the hottest day of the year? Why do people have unprotected sex?

The answer is often the same in every case. We seem to be a species who think "It will not happen to me". Even when the statistics are clear and high.

But in THIS thread the statistics are not clear and high. You have offered nothing more than statistics that REPORTS of trafficking has gone up while claiming ACTUAL trafficking has gone up very very significantly. And you mangle some citations that cite estimation ranges by ONLY citing the upper end of those ranges because they appeal to you.

But if you look at the lower ranges, there is a 1-7 chance only that your sex worker is trafficked and that is in countries with much different regulations and scenarios than our own. The stats for here in Ireland are very unclear. Especially as we only very recently changed our law so are statistically in a state of flux here where we have little relevant figures at the moment.

So I think the simple answer to your question is, the punter simply does not see the worrying statistics and where they do see it they proceed with that sense of physical and moral invincibility of "this will not happen to me".

nozzferrahhtoo

Former Observer wrote: »

Sex is not a right.

Agreed. But surely the consent to it, or the withholding of consent for it, is?

Which is one reason to be concerned about laws related to Prostituition. Because any law in that area is essentially telling adults when, and under what circumstances, they can exercise their right to consent to sex.

So I think if we are to do that ever, we need to be damn sure we can justify any moves we make in that context. And I do not think many anti sex trade laws achieve that standard.

Former Observer wrote: »

It is the commodification of human beings.

So too then is the entire acting trade, the entire massage trade, the entire modelling trade, and much much more. Hell what about televised sport?

Former Observer wrote: »

The "tax it, regulate it, and make it safe" (lol) argument is the facile mirror image of the argument that all prostitutes should be thrown in jail. Unfortunately the situation is more complex than that.

Yes it is complex. Which is why I doubt we will never find an ideal solution ever. But we can work towards an ideal. An ideal that maximises the well being of sex workers, while maximising the tools we as a society have to bring to bear on criminal elements in that industry.

And the "tax it, regulate it, and make it safe" argument that you "lol" at rather than refuting or attacking with reasoning and data..... is an expression of that ideal. The idea being that the tools and resources a well taxed and well regulated industry afford us are better than an underground industry that we know little about.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Such a degrading profession.

I do not think that is true per se. I think very few professions are actively degrading in and of themselves in fact. It depends how you engage with that profession, as either a worker in it or a consumer of it.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You don't get much lower, men have zero respect for prostitutes, a sex object, that's all.

Speak for yourself I guess. I have known sex workers. Mostly, as I said earlier, girls who did it infrequently and part time as a means to subsidise third level education. My respect for them was no lower, or higher, than any other women I knew. Nor can I think of a reason why it might be, or should be.

Nor do I imagine that that level of respect would have been altered in any way had I actually engaged their services. If YOU have no respect for prostitutes that is fine.... your opinion is your own. But do not project that to a brush that tarnishes the rest of us if you please.

Another advantage of regulation and tax would be there would be resources available to take care of the women (and men too that sell sex) and help them to alternative careers if they so wished.

We don't have mountains of money BTW, we still have huge debt and have had once off windfall tax revenues lately that we just spent - much of it on locked in permanent raises and expenditure but that's another debate.

Paddy The Pirate

The only way I'm buying sex is the easy way. Whatevers easiest.. If she's on the street corner on my way home from the pub, I'm on it like hotcakes, if she's offering discounts online, same applies.. it's simple