We have talked a lot about the new laws in Ireland. Specifically, we have discussed the criminalization of buying sexual opening. We have made our position clear many times. We believe these laws make things more dangerous for the people who work in the industry. We don’t need to revisit those old arguments today.
However, there is a new side to this story. It is a worrying side. A former business owner is speaking out. She is 68 years old. She used to run a brothel. Although her business closed in 2002, she remains a campaigner. She wants to explain why banning the purchase of sexual opening is a bad idea. She thinks it might actually lead to more crime.
A Warning from an Expert
Vivien is not just anyone. She knows this world very well. She says the new laws are “draconian.” This means they are very harsh and severe. She believes these laws will “only make matters worse.” Her main concern isn’t just the workers. It is about the general public. She worries that if men cannot buy sexual opening safely, they might hurt innocent people.
She shared a scary thought. She said, “It’s an unbelievable law; it’s not going to stop anything.” She is talking about basic human needs. She explains that when a man wakes up with a craving, he is going to look for a way to satisfy it. If the law makes it hard to find a consensual service, the man might get desperate.
This is where the danger starts. Vivien warns that these men could end up targeting innocent women. She says, “The guys could end up picking on an innocent girl or woman on the street who’s not there to do business.” This is a frightening thought. She believes that blocking access to sexual opening could lead to more attacks. It could even lead to rape.
The Risk to Innocent Women
This is a very serious point. We usually think about laws regarding sexual opening in terms of politics or morals. But Vivien is asking us to think about safety. She is asking us to think about the woman walking home at night.
If a man cannot go to a safe, regulated place to buy sexual opening, where does he go? He might go to a dark street. He might see a woman who is just walking to the store. Because he cannot get what he needs legally, he might try to take it by force. This puts everyone at risk.
The law was meant to protect women. But Vivien argues it might do the opposite. It might take a controlled situation and turn it violent. We need to listen to this warning. We need to think about the real-world consequences of these laws.
Why Legalizing Helps
Vivien does not just talk about the problems. She also talks about solutions. She does not support legalizing everything everywhere. She does not want street corners to be chaotic. Instead, she believes in properly run establishments. She thinks we should look at places like Amsterdam.
In Amsterdam, there are specific areas for the sexual opening trade. It is regulated. It is safe. Vivien thinks this model works best. She said, “The places that take care of their clients and their girls should be allowed to run a brothel like in Amsterdam in designated areas.”
When everything is legal and paid for, order follows. Everyone knows the rules. The workers are safe. The clients are safe. The neighbors are safe. It keeps the activity away from people who do not want to see it. It keeps it away from schools and normal family areas. This seems like a much smarter way to handle things.
Who Benefits from the Sexual Opening Industry?
We often forget that the clients are people, too. Vivien points out that many different types of people use these services. It is not just one type of man. She mentions two groups specifically that might suffer if the industry is criminalized.
First, she talks about young men. She says, “The guy that’s a virgin who’s about to go into a relationship who’d like a bit of experience.” This young man might be nervous. He might want to learn how to be with a woman before he starts dating seriously. Seeing a professional gives him a safe space to learn. It can actually help his future relationships.
Second, she talks about disabled people. She says, “disabled people would come in because they couldn’t cope with the situation themselves.” This is a very important point. People with disabilities often struggle to find partners. They have the same needs as everyone else. But they might face barriers in the dating world. A regulated sexual opening service provides them with a safe outlet. It treats them with dignity. It addresses their human needs without judgment.
By banning the purchase of sexual opening, we are punishing these people. We are telling them they cannot have a safe way to handle their natural urges. This does not seem fair.
It Is Just a Service
Vivien also speaks about the workers themselves. Many people assume that working in this industry must damage a person’s mind. They think it must be traumatic. But Vivien disagrees.
She insists that her career did not hurt her psychologically. She said, “It had no impact on me.” She has a very practical view on life. She believes that every woman faces challenges. “At the end of the day, every woman is in the same sort of situation in one way or another,” she says. She believes that “everyone pays a price at one point or another.”
She sees her work simply as a service. She compares it to any other job. She explains that sometimes men don’t get what they need at home. Maybe they are in a marriage that has issues. Maybe they are lonely. If they cannot find relief at home, they might get angry or upset with their family.
By coming to pay for sexual opening, they can get their “angst out of their body.” This actually helps stabilize their home life. They can go back to their families feeling relieved. It can prevent them from cheating or causing trouble. It is a pragmatic solution to a human problem.
We Must Live in the Real World
I have to say, I find this perspective fascinating. We need to be very clear about one thing: there is never an excuse for sexual violence. “Internal wiring or no internal wiring,” as Vivien says, rape is a horrible crime. My personal feelings on punishing such crimes are very strict. Nothing justifies hurting an innocent person.
However, we have to be realistic. We have to live in the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. I do not have proof that banning the purchase of sexual opening makes men more dangerous. I am not a psychologist. But it does make logical sense. If you block a safe outlet, the pressure has to go somewhere.
I will leave the final debate to the experts. I will leave it to the psychologists who study the human mind. I will leave it to the sexual opening workers who meet these clients every day. They know the reality better than I do. But I do see one thing clearly. The people who pushed for this law probably did not think about this side effect.
Radical feminists and lawmakers often focus on the ideal. They want to abolish the trade completely. That is an understandable goal. But in trying to achieve that ideal, they might be making the streets less safe.
For them, safety for sexual opening workers and the general public might come second to their political message. This is a mistake. We should never sacrifice safety for ideology. We need to look at the facts. We need to listen to people like Vivien Ella Walden. She has been there. She knows what happens when you push these things underground.
Conclusion
The debate over the criminalization of buying sexual opening is complicated. Strong feelings run on both sides. But we cannot ignore the warning signs. Vivien Ella Walden has given us a lot to think about. She suggests that stricter laws could have dangerous results.
If we ban the purchase of sexual opening, we do not stop the demand. We push it into the shadows. This can lead desperate men to act out in scary ways. It can put innocent women at risk of attack. It also removes a safe, helpful service for vulnerable people like people with disabilities or the inexperienced.
It’s time to look at a different approach. Maybe regulation is better than prohibition. Maybe designated, safe areas like in Amsterdam are the answer. This would protect the workers. It would protect the clients. And most importantly, it would protect the public.
We need laws that make sense. We need laws that actually keep people safe. If the current law puts innocent women in danger, then it is not a good law. We must prioritize real-world safety over moral arguments. The conversation must continue, and we must listen to people with lived experience. Safety should always come first.
