NI - Criminalising people who pay for sex won't help anti-trafficking fight.

[Laura Lee]

most garda have the same, but afaird to come and say it in the public eye

they just tell us, while there paying for the fun and frolics

Exactly. Well said.

[John Thomas]

live now

justice committee debate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/northern_ireland/

[samlad]

live now

justice committee debate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/northern_ireland/

Very good points so far

[milkman]

Don't have the time to listen to the proceedings - anything impressive of note on either side of the debate?

[John Thomas]

police comments criticised

this bill is chugging along

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24193952

[John Thomas]

i have a feeling that this bill will be passed - northern ireland is a small effectively fascist state with 2 opposing sectarian parties more interested in debating flag issues than the morality of prostitution

its seen as a bad thing by most people and to oppose it openly even on technical grounds would earn the protester quite a bad rep

the police are ultimately the watch dogs of the politicians and despite the very obvious operational difficulties in implementing any new law i feel that in the end they will support the bill

whats it all about?- a simple moral crusade by bible thumpers in the DUP. Throughout history there have always been these control mechanisms - at the heart of the human psyche is a moral repugnance at the idea of selling sex which demotes the act of procreation to a commercial transaction

its profound stuff and part of me as a punter has felt at times diminished somehow by a paid for sexual encounter

our bodies are not consumables and they are not for sale

but i digress................

[Empirical]

...at the heart of the human psyche is a moral repugnance at the idea of selling sex which demotes the act of procreation to a commercial transaction...

Not quite; go back to the Romans and you'd find brothels on every High Street; for them, it wasn't a moral issue, it was an everyday, ubiquitous, unremarkable activity. In this world a 'man' was characterised as a vir through the active role, the gender of the passive partner was irrelevant; though passive men were shamed for their lack of masculinity.Rome was also a very patriarchal society, and this aspect was certainly syncretised by the early Christians. But, it does seem that many of the workers were trafficked slaves.

It was the doctors of the early Christian church who changed things. Firstly, they defined sex by gender and not by 'active' and 'passive' roles as the Romans did. Secondly, they reasoned that it was ideal to be 'pure' to enter heaven, and to be 'pure' it was best to be chaste. They recognised that populating heaven with virgins was self-limiting, so some sex was necessary. But to keep this 'pure', sex had to occur only in marriage, and only for the purpose of procreation; and only in 'the man superior' position — all other positions were bestial, and thus bad and sinful. And as procreation was a serious business, there could by no enjoyment in it. As sex was for the procreation of chaste people, contraception was wrong. Therefore all other forms of sex were bad, and sinful — including same-sex activities. This is still the official position of the holy apostolic and catholic church today; and the basis for moral reasoning in protestant churches.

And, what for the Romans had been a private, personal matter, was changed into Christian dogma; and this dogma was integrated into into canon law, and then into the secular law of the state. So ask, why is it the business of the state to interfere in consensual activities between two or more people, provided none is hurt?

So, any moral repugnance is a theological construct, not necessarily inherent. And, at least in the western world, any attempt to control prostitution is based on this construct, itself a product of theologians with some very strange ideas.

[Curvaceous Kate]

Not quite; go back to the Romans and you'd find brothels on every High Street; for them, it wasn't a moral issue, it was an everyday, ubiquitous, unremarkable activity. In this world a 'man' was characterised as a vir through the active role, the gender of the passive partner was irrelevant; though passive men were shamed for their lack of masculinity.Rome was also a very patriarchal society, and this aspect was certainly syncretised by the early Christians. But, it does seem that many of the workers were trafficked slaves.

It was the doctors of the early Christian church who changed things. Firstly, they defined sex by gender and not by 'active' and 'passive' roles as the Romans did. Secondly, they reasoned that it was ideal to be 'pure' to enter heaven, and to be 'pure' it was best to be chaste. They recognised that populating heaven with virgins was self-limiting, so some sex was necessary. But to keep this 'pure', sex had to occur only in marriage, and only for the purpose of procreation; and only in 'the man superior' position — all other positions were bestial, and thus bad and sinful. And as procreation was a serious business, there could by no enjoyment in it. As sex was for the procreation of chaste people, contraception was wrong. Therefore all other forms of sex were bad, and sinful — including same-sex activities. This is still the official position of the holy apostolic and catholic church today; and the basis for moral reasoning in protestant churches.

And, what for the Romans had been a private, personal matter, was changed into Christian dogma; and this dogma was integrated into into canon law, and then into the secular law of the state. So ask, why is it the business of the state to interfere in consensual activities between two or more people, provided none is hurt?

So, any moral repugnance is a theological construct, not necessarily inherent. And, at least in the western world, any attempt to control prostitution is based on this construct, itself a product of theologians with some very strange ideas.

Sounds about right to me. After all, isn't religion all about control?

[John Thomas]

Sounds about right to me. After all, isn't religion all about control?

Yes religion is about control and the state controls us too through its laws.

Im not sure morality derives purely from the Church. Its the idea of a law which protects the group perhaps at the expense of an individuals freedom

But some things like killing someone just seems wrong whether imposed by a law or not.

A lot of women are atheists but would not enter prostitition - not because they think the sex is wrong but because they feel that a man cannot own their bodies by the simple act of paying them.

At the other end of the scale I have met many escorts who do not feel it is incompatible with their religious beliefs

Perhaps all views do come from outside and theres only apparent freedom of choice.

[Empirical]

Sounds about right to me. After all, isn't religion all about control?

Certainly, most western religions are about control, more specifically about control by men. I'm sure there are some minor branches which encourage free thought, though they will still be constrained by history.