Originally Posted by Mar Tweedy

Oh Christ on a stick, this argument is going round and round in circles.

Its always like so, well here's an example of when it isn't always wah wah wah, your argument falls wah wah wah.

Are you guys for flipping real?

One/two/three good stories does not a convincing argument make. Forget Femmefatale and winning the "she said always and it isn't always" argument - go to your mammy's to adjudicate on that one, (but we won the argument nah nah ).

FFS.

Next up, prostitution as a service for the poor disabled who can't get any without it? (yes there are issues for people who have intellectual disabilities in particular and some other disabilities having their sexuality recognised, but newsflash for you, lots of "them" have relationships. How bloody insulting is that?).

Listen, you lads obviously have the sensitivity of concrete thereby proving my suspicion that men who use prostitutes (i acknowledge not all of you necessarily have) are thick feckin numbskulls with the relationship skills of the dodo. You will never be convinced that most prostitution involves exploitation because you haven't the brain cells or sensitivity to recognise exploitation unless its the, wah wah wah, nasty wasty feminists. Ever thought that some of the Julia Roberts types some of ya met might have been lying to you because you are a trick to them??

I'm not talking about you Cato who at least is trying to find some middle ground. I'm there with you as well as East Coast Elitist who are struggling with nuance and not jumping up and down like the kids saying 'we won we won, you lose, we demand our right to use prostitutes'.

Put that one on a placard and march up and down on Leinster St - go on, i dare you.....

Mar
Think about what you imply in this post, firstly men can only talk to prostitutes as clients, secondly winning this debate is more important than reaching a consensus and thirdly you believe that moral blackmail and public disgrace are moral responses.

You will never be convinced that most prostitution involves exploitation because etc etc etc feminist polemical nonsense

Not all prostitution involves exploitation, as the term exploitation is normally understood.

If not all prostitution involves exploitation, your argument is bogus.

Rely on feminists to build their argument on sand.

I'm not talking about you Cato who at least is trying to find some middle ground. I'm there with you as well as East Coast Elitist who are struggling with nuance and not jumping up and down like the kids saying 'we won we won, you lose, we demand our right to use prostitutes'.

You know there's actually a significant "right to prostitute" movement out there, don't you?

Incidentally, it is also led by feminists.

Originally Posted by JCSkinner

Some would still be slaves, FF. That's the point I was making.

Not really a brilliant point. The point of the entire debate is jailing innocent clients who do nothing other than have sex with a free adult prostitute.

The Garrido story tells us that, tragically, sex slavery exists in the world. What is about to happen to Garrido and his wife is exactly what should happen to every person who enslaves a person, and has sex with her in the knowledge that she is coerced: jail for the remainder of life, with high likelihood of life being made unbearable by fellow inmates.

That has nothing to do with prostitution. It's about kidnapping and rape.

You can legalise prostitution while wiping out 100% of all instances of kidnapping. There would be a branch of the Gardaí whose job would be to pose as clients and inspect brothels. There would be lucrative rewards for everyone disclosing the whereabouts of unlicensed brothels.

You have the chance to wipe out the dangerous aspects of this industry. But there are plenty like FF who seem to really prefer the status quo, and propose ridiculous, unjust changes, presumably so that nothing is ever done.

The last thing FF wants to hear is a prostitute on RTE radio going, "I'm so glad they legalised and regulated it properly, my life is so much better now and I'm happy and earning loads of ching ching"

The last thing FF wants to hear is a prostitute on RTE radio going, "I'm so glad they legalised and regulated it properly, my life is so much better now and I'm happy and earning loads of ching ching"

To be honest I don't think they'd really care.

But if FF were linked with libertarian prostitution reform, then their false social-conservative reputation would be undermined. They would be worried about that.

No Capitalist neo-liberal party - e.g. FF - can be socially-conservative.

Originally Posted by sharper

I think the reality is those who want prostitution banned want it so because they find it repugnant.

If that's really the case, what does it say about those who, conversely, want prostitution to be legitimized? That they think it's a good, healthy thing?

Originally Posted by Sailor

Mar - I responded to your statement that those of us who are opposed to criminalisation are never, ever prepared to regard it as exploitative. I clearly stated that it is often exploitative - but that still won´t satisfy you. But you are trying to steer this away from the politics of the argument onto the morality of prostitution - you cannot legislate for any situation in a way that you want - with a guarantee that nobody is ever hurt or wronged. All our laws have their flaws and weaknesses - I thought you wanted to debate the general concept of criminalisation but you cannot do that if you want to cover ever possible situation and eventuality.

The only direction I'm trying to steer the discussion is the personal responsibility one in my belief if we all took personal responsibility for our actions, well call me an idealist, but I think the world might be a better place

So viewing it from a personal responsibility point of view as a potential user of such services (hypothetically speaking of course) how could you possibly know whether the person is trafficked or forced into prostitution through circumstance or threats?

I'm not sure that regulation has eliminated that possibility. I said on a previous post I'm open to the idea of harm reduction. I'm a pragmatist.
But as someone who tries to live a reasonably ethical life, I wonder how anyone could know for sure, that they are not involved in exploitation while using a prostitute?

Even in a regulated situation, you could imagine a pimp at home who demands the cash, could you not? Thats my question that is not answered by any of the 'prostitution can be cool' brigade. I'm wondering, even using that standard, how do you discern whether that is definitely the case?

Originally Posted by Sailor

I don´t think anybody is denying that it is ever exploitation - I think, and I posted earlier, that it is often exploitation - but the problem is the likes of Femme insist it is always exploitation. And we all know only too well that she is posting from a purely ideological standpoint and it doesn´t matter a damn what anyone says - she is "under orders" on this and pretty well every other subject on which she posts.

From whom? I speak for myself, Sailor. Sorry that you don't seem to be able to accept that.

Originally Posted by fiannafailure

Mar
Think about what you imply in this post, firstly men can only talk to prostitutes as clients, secondly winning this debate is more important than reaching a consensus and thirdly you believe that moral blackmail and public disgrace are moral responses.

Firstly, not all men of course, but i would think the opportunities to chat to female or male prostitutes about their situations in life in a context where they are safe enough to be truthful are minimal - not true?

I was giving out about the tendency to try and 'win' rather than discuss nuance.

Well I think if someone sees nothing to be ashamed about using a prostitute (and I'm not saying that they always or often should) why wouldn't they march for that 'right'?
I don't see the moral blackmail point - enlighten me if you have the interest/time?

Originally Posted by feargach

Person 1: You can have sex with me for €50
Person 2: Are you sure this is your free choice? Can I see your ID to confirm you're a grown-up?
Person 1: Yes.
Person 2: OK then.

Now I can't see how any government has the right to interfere in the above situation. Like most people, I would not choose to be either of the participants, who buys/sells sex. But I have no right to stick my nose in, and nobody else does.

It's their bodies, and what they choose to do with them is their business and theirs alone. You cannot interfere. The law cannot restrain or regulate it.

The law, in most countries, doesn't consider sex to be something that can be legitimately bought and sold. This probably has something to do with the fact that the human body is thought of as market inalienable (res extra commercium). One can't sell/buy human body parts and organs. So the law on prostitution has much more to it than a simple ban on some form of 'consensual' sex.

Originally Posted by femmefatale

If that's really the case, what does it say about those who, conversely, want prostitution to be legitimized? That they think it's a good, healthy thing?

It says only that they don't believe what they find repugnant should be illegal or that do not find it repugnant (which does not mean they find it to be a good thing).

It's obvious from your posts you have a serious problem with both women who act as prositutus and men who purchase their services. You reinfornce this position constantly in your posts rarely bothering to address whether any actual harm is being done.