Prostitution

simu

Sleepy wrote:

An interesting article but I disagree with a number of elements of it:

^^^ that article: Yeah, there was a lot of ideology in it - you get male prostitues and female madams and even clients etc too so it's not a simple case of men v. women. Actually, I was more interested in what they did to reduce levels of prostitution but couldn't find a less waffly description of it online. My thing is that I don't think prostitution is necessary and i think that legalisation will lead to it being more common and accepted and having the more extreme illegal side (as in the stuff that will never be legalised) ignored because we can all pretend that everything is fine and dandy. Not only do I think prostitution is unnecessary but also I don't think it has any great benefit for society - it causes more harm than good. People just do not need it, they can live without it and it's not something to be encouraged imo.

DOLEMAN

fits wrote:

The fact is, most of the women who end up in prostitution are products of difficult/horrible upbringings or situations.

I don't know where to start on this.

1. Why can't you just accept that some people don't see sex as something bad or something to be ashamed of? Just because you have issues with sex doesn't mean prostitutes are disturbed.

2. Lots of people have horrible upbringings/difficult lives. It has nothing to do with becoming a prostitute.

3. Saying prostitutes are products of a terrible background is quite insulting to prostitutes.

Why can't people just accept that sex is not a bad thing? Why is this so hard to visualise? SEX IS NOT BAD. There is nothing wrong with sex. So what if they get money for having sex. You do not need to be disturbed to be able to see sex as something that's not a big deal.

/sorry for the rant
//the prostitutes i know do it for money, see no big deal in it, and could easily be working as something else. one of them is actually a company director. being disturbed/forced is not an issue for them.

fits

Listen here mister! I never said sex was a bad thing, I dont think sex is a bad thing. As far as I know, and I dont know much, most prostitutes in Dublin are either drug addicts, in a huge amount of debt, or from a foreign country. If you pay to go off with a prostitute, how do you know that she is comfortable with this 'occupation'? how do you know that she's not being forced to do it? And how do you know that she wasnt from an abusive family and thinks so little of herself that she deserves no better???
You dont. Maybe theres a small and I mean small minority who are comfortable with it, but you wont know this when you pay for it. Sex is not bad, sleeping with some idiot who sees you as an object for his own satisfaction because you need the money, or because you're forced is bad. And in my opinion, any fellow who uses prostitutes is scum, because he doesnt care where these women come from.

Theres too much potential for abuse in this industry, and I'll never think its ok!

DOLEMAN wrote:

I don't know where to start on this.

1. Why can't you just accept that some people don't see sex as something bad or something to be ashamed of? Just because you have issues with sex doesn't mean prostitutes are disturbed.

2. Lots of people have horrible upbringings/difficult lives. It has nothing to do with becoming a prostitute.

3. Saying prostitutes are products of a terrible background is quite insulting to prostitutes.

Why can't people just accept that sex is not a bad thing? Why is this so hard to visualise? SEX IS NOT BAD. There is nothing wrong with sex. So what if they get money for having sex. You do not need to be disturbed to be able to see sex as something that's not a big deal.

/sorry for the rant
//the prostitutes i know do it for money, see no big deal in it, and could easily be working as something else. one of them is actually a company director. being disturbed/forced is not an issue for them.

DOLEMAN

fits -

I personally know prostitutes (I used to make adult websites as a student.)

A lot are foreign. But they do not have money problems. They are seriously loaded. Prostitutes make a lot of money. None of the prostitutes I knew had a pimp. They were "independent" prostitutes. I would consider them to be as troubled and disturbed as the average person. Certainly, in my industry (IT) the programmers are a lot more disturbed (social problems) than the prostitutes I know!

I have no doubt some prostitutes have a drug problem. And I would agree that they probably wouldn't be prostitutes if the drug problem didn't exist. But, you know, I wouldn't be a programmer if I won the lottery. Everyone has to do what they do to survive. Prostitution is simpy quick and easy money for drugs. I'm sure if McDonalds paid €300 per hour they'd do that instead (if they could be hired, that is...)

The "abusive family" argument really is insulting to people who have been abused. Lots of people are abused and don't become prostitutes. I don't see the connection you're trying to make.

You have to understand that although you believe sex is some kind of precious thing, for some people sex is just sex. The idea of having sex with a stranger does not bother them. So getting lots of money for it is great. Not everyone sees sex the way you do.

Obviously being a prostitute would not suit you. Just like being a pilot would not suit me (I hate flying.)

But the point is...

The prostitute agree to the deal. The man agrees to the deal. Money is exchanged. Everyone wins.

Just because this is a difficult concept for you to accept does not make it wrong. It's like those religious nuts. They want to force everyone to accept their beliefs just because it's important to them.

What the prostitute and the bloke do is none of your business, and you should not judge them for it. Saying a man is scum if he pays for sex shows you've got some weird sex issues.

/I'm hungover and ranting. sorry!

Bottle_of_Smoke

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

Taken from Sky News today. I suppose these women dont really exist!

Read the whole post? If you do you'll see I was referring to the point he\she made about prostitutes always earning crap money sleeping with hundreds of men a day. Which is a common misconception created by sensationalist evening herald headlines(or whatever you read, sensationalism sells newspapers)

Stop trying to force your trafficking rant in everywhere, even when it's completely irrelevent. On a bulletin board it makes you look very stupid.

Simu wrote:

So, people can do anything they want to earn more money? How far do you go with that? Should people sell their livers because it pays better than a month in McDonalds?

It wouldn't be for me. If someone could cope without a liver & were comfortable with the consequences I wouldn't however hold it against them.

Pimps take a large proportion of the money and tend not to be the nicest of people anyway. My point was for those who claim that prostitution is a great job for women who like to have lots of sex - having lots of sex with people you're attracted to and seduced isn't the same thing as having it with clients to put bread on the table. Even if you do reject some of the uh odder clients, you'll still have to sleep with a hell of a lot of people you wouldn't want to touch normally.

You don't have to be a nice person to be concerned about something that generates you a sizable income

Second part - If that's your point then why did you make it in relation to something I posted? I never made that claim. Aside from the money I don't think it would be a great job, everyone you have sex with will be nowhere near as experienced as you! And they'll proably want anal.

Many peope on this thread seem to believe in Pretty Woman rather than real life tbh.

Many people believe Jesus Christ is going to save them. relevence?

fits wrote:

The fact is, most of the women who end up in prostitution are products of difficult/horrible upbringings or situations. I dont see too many middle class girls from happy families thinking its a good career choice. I think that any person who pays for sex without querying in their minds how this person ended up in this industry is scum. How are people paying to sleep with these girls who obviously arent happy with their situation? That girl Maria from the prime time programme said she constantly cried and cried, but the clients just paid and left. How can people do this? It makes me seethe to the bone.

Ah yes, Maria, "speaking on behalf of every prostitute in the world"

Don't you see that if it was legal middle class girls might just consider it. Most people who can get by with legal income tend to do just that(middle class). Hence the ones who have no legal way of making money are of course going to be the most likely to prostitute.

Coolguy2006 wrote:

I WOULD NOT LOOK DOWN UPON ANY PROSTITUTE. I DONT THINK THEY ARE ANY LESS OF A PERSON THAN I AM. Where are you getting this crap?

Well I only condone regulated prostitution yet you keep arguing with me.

BrianD3

I saw a comment earlier in one of these prostitute threads that men don't *need* to visit a prostitute to have sex as it's so easy to score. Well this may be true for many men but there is a sizeable minority who for a variety of reasons find it next to impossible to get laid or have any dating success with women. These reasons could include physical or intellectual disability, being short or ugly etc. One of the more interesting reasons though is social anxiety. Research has shown that this prevents men from dating. It's sometimes called involuntary celibacy. Social anxiety in women doesn't have nearly as much of an effect on their sex lives. The reason is simply that men are expected to chase and woo women and impress them with competence, condidence, wit, charm etc.

In case anyone thinks I've just made this up, google a guy called Professor Brian Gilmartin and read his research and books on the topic of males who are failures when it comes to women. For these men prostitutes are their only option if they want to have sex.

Personally I know of several guys in their 30s that i'd say are still virgins or at the very least haven't been laid in many years. Women show no interest whatsoever in them. Society views this as a laughing matter, which is why films like "The 40 year old Virgin" are successful comedies. If some guy really is a 40 year old virgin and resorts to a prostitute to lose it, do people really expect him not to becasue he doesn't know whether the prostitute has been trafficked or not?

On the actual topic of trafficking - I didn't see the Prime Time programme but heard about it. Up to now most of what I've been hearing on this issue has come from the National Women's Council. A biased, feminist, lobby group which constantly portrays women as victims and men as penis wielding oppressors. So forgive me if I am dubious about anything they come out with. I'm not saying that there isn't trafficking just that it's hard to find an objective viewpoint.

simu

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

It wouldn't be for me. If someone could cope without a liver & were comfortable with the consequences I wouldn't however hold it against them.

Well, we disagree - have to leave it at that!

You don't have to be a nice person to be concerned about something that generates you a sizable income

Well, not nice was a euphemism. You said the pimps look out for their "employees" - afaik they can be quite violent and brutish and probably wouldn't accept a prostitutes's objection to having sex with a particular client easily. Although, the role of a pimp would probably change quite a bit if not disappear if the whole thing were legaliased.

Second part - If that's your point then why did you make it in relation to something I posted? I never made that claim. Aside from the money I don't think it would be a great job, everyone you have sex with will be nowhere near as experienced as you! And they'll proably want anal.

Twas in response to some other poster.

simu

BrianD3 wrote:

I saw a comment earlier in one of these prostitute threads that men don't *need* to visit a prostitute to have sex as it's so easy to score. Well this may be true for many men but there is a sizeable minority who for a variety of reasons find it next to impossible to get laid or have any dating success with women. These reasons could include physical or intellectual disability, being short or ugly etc. One of the more interesting reasons though is social anxiety. Research has shown that this prevents men from dating. It's sometimes called involuntary celibacy. Social anxiety in women doesn't have nearly as much of an effect on their sex lives. The reason is simply that men are expected to chase and woo women and impress them with competence, condidence, wit, charm etc.

In case anyone thinks I've just made this up, google a guy called Professor Brian Gilmartin and read his research and books on the topic of males who are failures when it comes to women. For these men prostitutes are their only option if they want to have sex.

Personally I know of several guys in their 30s that i'd say are still virgins or at the very least haven't been laid in many years. Women show no interest whatsoever in them. Society views this as a laughing matter, which is why films like "The 40 year old Virgin" are successful comedies. If some guy really is a 40 year old virgin and resorts to a prostitute to lose it, do people really expect him not to becasue he doesn't know whether the prostitute has been trafficked or not?

Uh, well first of all they can jerk off.

And do you think going to a prostitute will make them feel better and solve all their social problems? Guys like that need therapy tbh!

DOLEMAN

simu wrote:

Uh, well first of all they can jerk off.

And do you think going to a prostitute will make them feel better and solve all their social problems? Guys like that need therapy tbh!

Most of the men who use prostitutes are divorced men 30+ who are lonely and horny. They probably can't meet women or don't want a relationship.

The prostitute serves their purpose perfectly.

It's certainly not an ideal situation, but the women are happy to provide the service, and the men to use it, so I reckon we should just leave them to it. They're big boys and girls and they can decide for themselves. They don't need us telling them if they're right or wrong...

Also, if they stopped using the prostitutes and instead went to pubs and had lots of one night stands... would you be happier with that? At least with the prostitute both the man and woman know where they stand. There is no "wondering if he'll call" bull**** the next day. And condoms are consistantly used, unlike one night stands...

BrianD3

simu wrote:

And do you think going to a prostitute will make them feel better and solve all their social problems? Guys like that need therapy tbh!

Therapy doesn't work for them apparently. Going to a prostitute won't solve all their problems but it may make them feel better and take some of the "hype" out of sex.

And no, they can't just "jerk off". Men's sexual urges are not satisfied by jerking off, if they were there would be no reproduction!

simu

DOLEMAN wrote:

Most of the men who use prostitutes are divorced men 30+ who are lonely and horny. They probably can't meet women or don't want a relationship.

The prostitute serves their purpose perfectly.

What's wrong with masturbating?

It's certainly not an ideal situation, but the women are happy to provide the service, and the men to use it, so I reckon we should just leave them to it. They're big boys and girls and they can decide for themselves. They don't need us telling them if they're right or wrong...

I'm not convinced those women are happy.

Also, if they stopped using the prostitutes and instead went to pubs and had lots of one night stands... would you be happier with that? At least with the prostitute both the man and woman know where they stand. There is no "wondering if he'll call" bull**** the next day. And condoms are consistantly used, unlike one night stands...

Well, at least they would be developing social skills then! Women are people - not sex vending machines!

simu

BrianD3 wrote:

Therapy doesn't work for them apparently. Going to a prostitute won't solve all their problems but it may make them feel better and take some of the "hype" out of sex.

I doubt it tbh. If anything, it'll lead to some sort of virgin/whore complex.

And no, they can't just "jerk off". Men's sexual urges are not satisfied by jerking off, if they were there would be no reproduction!

Well, tough. No one has a right to sex with other people.

DOLEMAN

simu wrote:

I'm not convinced those women are happy.

Well, it's fair to say most people are not happy in their job, or just generally not very happy with their life.

simu wrote:

No one has a right to sex with other people.

Well, that's where the prostitute comes in...

Bottle_of_Smoke

BrianD3 wrote:

And no, they can't just "jerk off". Men's sexual urges are not satisfied by jerking off, if they were there would be no reproduction!

Your body thinks you're having sex when you masturbate so reproduction isn't relevent. However you're still right for the reason that a wet vagina turns you on more & feels better than your hand.

I'm not convinced those women are happy.

Are you sure secondary school teachers are happy, are you sure teenage retail workers on minimum wage are happy, are you even sure celebrities are happy?. But you don't have a problem with thir lifestyle because sex isn't involved. Aside from the female teacher too pretty for prison.

If it was legal (& properly regulated coolguy!) then unhappy women you mention wouldn't have to do it.

Also, if they stopped using the prostitutes and instead went to pubs and had lots of one night stands... would you be happier with that? At least with the prostitute both the man and woman know where they stand. There is no "wondering if he'll call" bull**** the next day. And condoms are consistantly used, unlike one night stands...

Very well put.

Simu wrote:

I doubt it tbh. If anything, it'll lead to some sort of virgin/whore complex.

Heh cos that's certainly not already in existance!:rolleyes:

simu

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Are you sure secondary school teachers are happy, are you sure teenage retail workers on minimum wage are happy, are you even sure celebrities are happy?. But you don't have a problem with thir lifestyle because sex isn't involved. Aside from the female teacher too pretty for prison.

Well, I don't think those jobs are as demanding physically and emotionally and societally as prostitution by a long shot. It might be ok in an ideal world where people didn't have such issues with sex and economic inequality isn't a problem but legalising prostitution in Ireland would make this a worse, not a better society to live in imo.

Heh cos that's certainly not already in existance!:rolleyes:

I never denied that. /dunks eyes

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

So, use a broadsword to do the job of a scalpel? Hardly a fitting solution tbh.

I've already out-lined how this can be tackled by society. Unfortunately, we're too greedy to solve the problem.

No but the idea that you simply legalise free movement of workers and hope the problem goes away is very niave.

It may tackle the issue of why these girls let themselves by trafficed into the country in the first place but it doesn't address why they remain here as forced sex workers at all. And simply saying we should improve the economies of the poorer Eastern European and African countries so this crime doesn't happen could take decades.

fits

DOLEMAN wrote:

fits -

What the prostitute and the bloke do is none of your business, and you should not judge them for it. Saying a man is scum if he pays for sex shows you've got some weird sex issues.

!

Look if it really is the kind of girl you describe, who has no problem with selling sex rather than low esteem issues, I cant condemn it. Its just I think this sort of a woman is in the minority. If a man pays for sex he cant be sure that the girl is over 17, there of her own free will, or seeing any of the money. This is what is scummy. You have to care about these things. And no, its not comparable to buying a nestle bar!

Just because I dont like it, doesnt mean its going to stop, it is an old profession after all. This trafficking thing though, it has to stop, its awful...

nesf

simu wrote:

Well, I don't think those jobs are as demanding physically and emotionally and societally as prostitution by a long shot. It might be ok in an ideal world where people didn't have such issues with sex and economic inequality isn't a problem but legalising prostitution in Ireland would make this a worse, not a better society to live in imo.

I completely disagree with you. Legalising prostitution would not make this society much worse than it already is. It already happens, and properly regulating and controlling it can only improve conditions for those who work in the trade. It would also give us another nice tax stream, which is always nice.

You are taking a moral position and dressing it up in "logic" hun.

Bottle_of_Smoke

simu wrote:

Well, I don't think those jobs are as demanding physically and emotionally and societally as prostitution by a long shot. It might be ok in an ideal world where people didn't have such issues with sex and economic inequality isn't a problem but legalising prostitution in Ireland would make this a worse, not a better society to live in imo.




I never denied that. /dunks eyes

You said it might end up happening:D

The only way to get to that ideal is to stamp out those silly issues. Guys who want prostitutes shouldn't have to miss out because people are backward about sex.

What reasons make you think it would be a worse society to live in?

simu

nesf wrote:

I completely disagree with you. Legalising prostitution would not make this society much worse than it already is. It already happens, and properly regulating and controlling it can only improve conditions for those who work in the trade. It would also give us another nice tax stream, which is always nice.

No - it would lead to it booming and becoming commonplace yet not accepted enough to be seen as a respectable career or even part-time job choice. It wouldn't improve conditions all that much and you'd have far more people working in a shítty job.

You are taking a moral position and dressing it up in "logic" hun.

As are you. It's always going to be one opinion v. another.

Zombrex

DOLEMAN wrote:

fits -

I personally know prostitutes (I used to make adult websites as a student.)

A lot are foreign. But they do not have money problems. They are seriously loaded. Prostitutes make a lot of money. None of the prostitutes I knew had a pimp. They were "independent" prostitutes.

Thats great, but you cannot lump all prostitutes together and say they are all must be happy because of the handful you meet seemed happy. And no offense, but I imagine that you, just like everyone else here including myself, know jack-sh*t about the working conditions of the average prostitute working in Ireland.

Making such generalisations ignores the increasing rate of illegal sex trade in Ireland, that is putting a large number of women at serious risk.

There seems to be the attitude that its either all with this issue. One side is crying out that prostitution is totally immoral and the other side is saying don't be so hung up whats wrong with a bit of sex. Both attitudes ignore what is actually happening.

In between the race to the moral high ground the problem is being white washed over with what we want to assume about prostitution. Some people want to assume it is completely horrible for all women involved, some seem to want to assume that all women that are involved are happily making money and like what they do. The truth is neither extremes.

Everyone is hung up about this issue, including the people who claim to not be hung up at all over it

nesf

simu wrote:

No - it would lead to it booming and becoming commonplace yet not accepted enough to be seen as a respectable career or even part-time job choice. It wouldn't improve conditions all that much and you'd have far more people working in a shítty job.

I disagree. As is, conditions are far worse than what you describe. No job protection, no regulation and no rights is a far cry from a "shítty job". Plus, there are already a lot of shítty jobs out there. It's not exactly a good point to assume that "far more people" will take on crap work. How do you know this?

simu wrote:

As are you. It's always going to be one opinion v. another.

Not quite. My argument is based on taking what is at the moment a black economy and regulating it into a source of income for the rest of society. Taxes lost to this market, and others like drugs, are detrimental to society on real tangible terms rather than merely moral ones. In relation to your point that legalising prostitution can only be bad for society you are not making sense. What exactly will happen to "make society worse"?

simu

nesf wrote:

I disagree. As is, conditions are far worse than what you describe. No job protection, no regulation and no rights is a far cry from a "shítty job".

So, why not stamp down on it properly instead of the usual "it'll always be with us, oldest profession" guff?

Plus, there are already a lot of shítty jobs out there. It's not exactly a good point to assume that "far more people" will take on crap work. How do you know this?

Because it'll be normalised to a degree (as in lots of guys will get the idea it's ok to do it but not ok enough to tell mammy about it or have mammy work as one all the same) and there will always be a supply of poor people from here or abroad to provide the workforce (unless we see some world-wide economic miracle but don't hold your breath).

Not quite. My argument is based on taking what is at the moment a black economy and regulating it into a source of income for the rest of society. Taxes lost to this market, and others like drugs, are detrimental to society on real tangible terms rather than merely moral ones. In relation to your point that legalising prostitution can only be bad for society you are not making sense. What exactly will happen to "make society worse"?

So, the poor and undereducated will have the option of becoming prostitues as well as more traditional jobs such as cleaning and all - way hay for them (sarcastic).

DOLEMAN

Wicknight wrote:

And no offense, but I imagine that you, just like everyone else here including myself, know jack-sh*t about the working conditions of the average prostitute working in Ireland.

No offence taken, but I do know quite a bit about their working conditions. While it's nothing like working for a multi-national, it's pretty much show up, do the act, leave. Of course there are major security concerns, but that's another issue altogether (legalising and regulating prostitution.)

One of the girls does not do the "by the hour" thing. Basically she has semi-relationships with the guys, and they pay her a salary. For example, she often goes to Waterford and spends the weekend with this one guy. She'll get about €600 for it, but it's basically going for dinner, shopping and some sex. Kind of like a normal relationship. She really enjoys these encounters and tries to get that type of customer.

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

No but the idea that you simply legalise free movement of workers and hope the problem goes away is very niave.

It may tackle the issue of why these girls let themselves by trafficed into the country in the first place but it doesn't address why they remain here as forced sex workers at all. And simply saying we should improve the economies of the poorer Eastern European and African countries so this crime doesn't happen could take decades.

How is solving a problem at source rather than tackling it's symptoms naieve? (or are you just being your usual condescending self?)

I'm by no means suggesting that opening up the markets would free those forced to work here at the present. Legalisation and proper regulation of prostitution would take care of that. I refuse to believe that it's that difficult to shut down these operations in Ireland. Any idiot with access to Google or a copy of the Herald can find the numbers for these brothels which would make me think that the only reason they're still in operation is that the Gardai haven't the desire to close them down.

With regards improving the economies of the poorer Eastern European and African countries that's an off-shoot of what I was proposing. Global freedom of movement of labour could be written into law at a single meeting of the UN.

It won't happen because the 'they're taking our women and jobs' crowd would have a fit, western economies would suffer and governments all over the world would fall but many economists would agree with me that a global free market would ensure the best standard of living for all the inhabitants of this planet rather than just the 'top' ten percent or so. Maybe the fact that the politicians (and I'd wager the majority of the population of the western world) would never consider this option is why you consider the solution to be naieve. From every angle I've looked at this through, however, there is no other solution which will work. Simu posted an interesting article regarding how they stamped out the problem of trafficking in Sweden by writing sexist laws that criminalised prostitution further and while this will work in some countries, were it to be tried worldwide I think we'd find certain countries (such as Thailand etc.) which would become little more than nations of brothels profiting from a huge boost in sex tourism.

You solve problems by solving them, not by patching bullet holes with band-aids.

Earthhorse

Sleepy wrote:

many economists would agree with me that a global free market would ensure the best standard of living for all the inhabitants of this planet

Many economists would agree with you on that point, but I doubt they'd agree that removing all barriers to movement of labour at once would be the best way to do this. It would, more than likely, plunge economies into chaos as the market was flooded with cheap labour. I agree that this is the way to move in the long term but it's unrealistic to think that one meeting of the UN or one stroke of a pen could really resolve this problem.

You only have to look to Russia to see what happens when you remove restrictions too fast. So in the meantime we have a real responsibility to ensure that people aren't exploited as a result of their lack of access to first world working conditions (i.e. first world jobs).

Sleepy wrote:

I refuse to believe that it's that difficult to shut down these operations in Ireland. Any idiot with access to Google or a copy of the Herald can find the numbers for these brothels which would make me think that the only reason they're still in operation is that the Gardai haven't the desire to close them down.

The Gardai do raid brothels in Ireland. The problem is it's difficult to prosecute without real evidence that solicitation is taking place. It's not illegal to have sex, so the only really evidence they can convict on is that of money changing hands for sex under pimps. That's pretty hard to get.

And even if they do scare off the clientele or proprietors from that location with such raids, they just relocate to new premises a week later. So it's easy shut these places down in the short term, but in the medium to long term it's nigh on impossible. And that's not a problem unique to Ireland either.

Earthhorse

DOLEMAN wrote:

No offence taken, but I do know quite a bit about their working conditions.

What you know about is the working conditions of girls you have come into contact with. That's a very limited number of the population of actual prostitues. So it's anecdotal evidence at best.

I have no doubt the type of scenario you describe exists, if anything this type of arrangement appears to be on the rise, but that doesn't mean the opposite end of the scale doesn't exist.

With regard to your point that many people working in IT have real problems (in your experience), it is highly unlikely that working in IT has either caused or compounded these problems. On the other hand, abuse victims who do turn to prostitution or porn are often compounding their problems and sometimes creating new ones in the process. Being indifferent to this is morally suspect at best.

CoolGuy2006

Sleepy wrote:

I refuse to believe that it's that difficult to shut down these operations in Ireland. Any idiot with access to Google or a copy of the Herald can find the numbers for these brothels which would make me think that the only reason they're still in operation is that the Gardai haven't the desire to close them down.

The guards do raid these brothels but i would imagine only if there is evidence of trafficking or if investigations lead them there. If they were to raid every brothel it would be an ongoing operation as a new one would open for every one that closes. It appears the guards are targetting the trafficking problem specifically, i may be wrong. As i have said and most people agree, not every prostitute is being forced into prostitution. There are alot of brothels out there so the police have their work cut out for them.



Taken from IOL earlier in the week...

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

Vice squad detectives are running three separate investigations into suspected people trafficking gangs in a bid to clamp down on sex slavery, gardaí revealed today.

As a new report warned Ireland is at increasing risk from eastern European smugglers, gardaí said around 10 women had been rescued from forced prostitution in Dublin brothels in the last three years.

Zombrex

DOLEMAN wrote:

One of the girls does not do the "by the hour" thing. Basically she has semi-relationships with the guys, and they pay her a salary. For example, she often goes to Waterford and spends the weekend with this one guy. She'll get about €600 for it, but it's basically going for dinner, shopping and some sex. Kind of like a normal relationship. She really enjoys these encounters and tries to get that type of customer.

I very very much doubt that is the situation with the average prostitute in Ireland.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

How is solving a problem at source rather than tackling it's symptoms naieve? (or are you just being your usual condescending self?)

Because its not solving the problem, its assuming the problem will go away if the economy improves.

It certainly might, but improving the economies of all Eastern European countries would take decades. It does nothing for the problem as it stands at the moment.