Exclusion of Sex Workers from Justice Committee

SoupMonster

There were a few post a while back regarding rape and how do you know someone has consented to a sex act, knowing that there is a possibility, however slim, that they could be coerced.

The law holds that a genuine belief as to consent is sufficient.
But there is also the concept that the woman has not consented if the man has been reckless as to whether she consents.

This looks to me that one could be guilty of rape in virtually all acts or prostitution, if one is reckless. But what is reckless in the case of engaging the services of an escort?

If she is debt-bonded, she MUST work to pay off the debt. She has NO choice, she is consenting under duress. She may not know this herself, so there are no tears or pleas for help. There is no consent on her part. But the customer genuinely believes there is. Now the issue is whether the customer has been reckless.

One might argue, that engaging any escort is itself reckless. You don't know her, who controls her, where she is from, you know nothing about her, you are being reckless, you cannot have any genuine belief. You are raping her.

Czarcasm

aare wrote: »

Ruhama were set up in 1989 as a covert conduit for the Magdalene laundries. All they have ever done since is lie, misrepresent and prey on sex workers with no scruples whatsoever..

You're not so different then from Ruhuma yourself. All you have done is lie, misrepresent and accuse me of all sorts, with no scruples whatsoever.

You tried and tried to discredit me at every single turn, tried and failed miserably I might add, and when you were proven categorically wrong each time, eventually you descended to the bottom of the barrel by trying to insinuate I was a rapist.

They also promote an ideology that is so far from reality as to be psychotic and will not even listen to any sex worker who does not pretend to agree with them.

You have promoted an "all your own way" ideology throughout this thread, dishing out "advice" to other posters and then telling posters they know nothing about other people to be interfering in their lives. You are the one who is removed from reality and Soupy has handed you your ass on a plate where your "facts" and "figures" are concerned, not to mention your bunkum "statistics".

You have not listened once to anyone who does not agree with you, and I say that as a former sex worker and on behalf of sex workers I meet every day and young people who are providing sexual favors for money who would not be statistically recorded as "sex workers".

That is why ordinary decent sex workers are horrified by Ruhama and do not want them anywhere near their lives or their families.

N'awful bent against them really though, don't you? One might say if one was talking shìte that it was borderline psychotic even, because throwing around psychology buzz words makes them sound like an intellectual, not like the wheels have come off the trolley at all at all.

Me? I think you're secretly working for TORL, reverse psychology- make the sex worker advocates look like a bunch of lofty gobshìtes. It's worked spectacularly if that's what you're at, but that could just be a Ruhuma. (badum tish!)

This is the only kind of sex worker who supports Ruhama:

bitemelikeagoodgirl.org.asm

Wehell ohhkay then, hot linking AND shilling your own personal website. That's exactly how the OP started their less than persuasive bullshìt. You two don't know each other do you? "Use me once shame on you, use me twice, now you gotta pay me!" kinda thing going on, bitta scissor action?

No? Oh well, worth a try, just like the way you tried to discredit me at every turn in this discussion.

SoupMonster wrote: »

OK. I'll take your word for it. Is there nothing else available?
So that would indicate that there is an opening for a true outreach service, with no other agenda other than to help.

You seem smart enough, why not find an outreach service you like, English, Scottish, Dutch, whatever, get their business plan, organisational plans, operating procedures, etc, look for a politician who wants to be seen to be 'doing something', let him/her champion your cause, let him find you a decent
chief executive, and set up you own.

An added benefit, you might find Czarcasm working for you.

You would then become part of the rescue industry that Laura despises.

In your honest opinion, is it even worth it to have any outreach organisation?

Soupy I'd sooner shìt in my own hands and clap, to be perfectly honest about it.

The day I would consider working with a clown (actually I WOULD love to work with CK, not all clowns are idiots!) will be the day I see a sex worker standing in the window of Brown Thomas in stockings and suspenders, combing his long brunette hair.

Grayson

SoupMonster wrote: »

If she is debt-bonded, she MUST work to pay off the debt. She has NO choice, she is consenting under duress. She may not know this herself, so there are no tears or pleas for help. There is no consent on her part. But the customer genuinely believes there is. Now the issue is whether the customer has been reckless.

One might argue, that engaging any escort is itself reckless. You don't know her, who controls her, where she is from, you know nothing about her, you are being reckless, you cannot have any genuine belief. You are raping her.

That's a bit of the streach of the imagination. You're decending into solipism. "I can't know anything with 100% certainty, therefore I'm raping her". Even if she's 100% behind it, it's still rape? Seriously, pull the other one.

Czarcasm

Interesting story on Jeremy Kyle at the moment-


"Intervention- Will rehab stop my daughter selling her body for drugs?"


The girl is only in her 20's and a heroin addict.


She's probably one of the 1% though aares, right? Imagine the pain and suffering that she's inflicting on her child, oh no, it's only her "client's" children that matter, right?


24 years of age and clots from injecting heroin in her thighs and she wants to get out of the game and get off heroin.

Comes from an average family that wants to help her, the bastards, how dare they impose their will on her, eh?

She's a typical example of the people I meet every, single, day. These people get in contact with me for help, I don't HAVE to go to them. I don't impose anything on them.

I just give them the tools to help themselves and do exactly what THEY want to do, not influenced by me in any way whatsoever. I just encourage them and support them in whatever they want to do and help them excel in whatever they choose to do with their lives.

Grayson

Czarcasm wrote: »

Interesting story on Jeremy Kyle at the moment-


"Intervention- Will rehab stop my daughter selling her body for drugs?"


The girl is only in her 20's and a heroin addict.


She's probably one of the 1% though aares, right? Imagine the pain and suffering that she's inflicting on her child, oh no, it's only her "client's" children that matter, right?


24 years of age and clots from injecting heroin in her thighs and she wants to get out of the game and get off heroin.

Comes from an average family that wants to help her, the bastards, how dare they impose their will on her, eh?

She's a typical example of the people I meet every, single, day. These people get in contact with me for help, I don't HAVE to go to them. I don't impose anything on them.

I just give them the tools to help themselves and do exactly what THEY want to do, not influenced by me in any way whatsoever. I just encourage them and support them in whatever they want to do and help them excel in whatever they choose to do with their lives.

Alrthough I'm sure there are heartless bastards who would say she deserved it, it's her choice, no-one forced her do do heroin, etc... I'm not one of them. Although, she must have sunk really low to be on Jeremy Kyle.

I'll agree about 10% with them. It is her fault, she's the one who made those choices. She might have had a horrible upbringing or have been abused. Or she might have been dim, seen trainspotting and thought, that looks cool.

But either way, it's a horrible position to be in. And one can only feel sorry for her. But in this case, the addiction is the problem, not the prostitution. She needs help. She needs to get off those drugs.

And here's the thing. Legal or illegal, she would still be doing that to get money. She's a drug addict, making it illegal won't stop her.
And regulating will help others, who are not drug addicts/trafficked/etc but have actually chosen it.

aare

Czarcasm wrote: »

You're not so different then from Ruhuma yourself. All you have done is lie, misrepresent and accuse me of all sorts, with no scruples whatsoever.

You tried and tried to discredit me at every single turn, tried and failed miserably I might add, and when you were proven categorically wrong each time, eventually you descended to the bottom of the barrel by trying to insinuate I was a rapist.




You have promoted an "all your own way" ideology throughout this thread, dishing out "advice" to other posters and then telling posters they know nothing about other people to be interfering in their lives. You are the one who is removed from reality and Soupy has handed you your ass on a plate where your "facts" and "figures" are concerned, not to mention your bunkum "statistics".

You have not listened once to anyone who does not agree with you, and I say that as a former sex worker and on behalf of sex workers I meet every day and young people who are providing sexual favors for money who would not be statistically recorded as "sex workers".





N'awful bent against them really though, don't you? One might say if one was talking shìte that it was borderline psychotic even, because throwing around psychology buzz words makes them sound like an intellectual, not like the wheels have come off the trolley at all at all.

Me? I think you're secretly working for TORL, reverse psychology- make the sex worker advocates look like a bunch of lofty gobshìtes. It's worked spectacularly if that's what you're at, but that could just be a Ruhuma. (badum tish!)




Wehell ohhkay then, hot linking AND shilling your own personal website. That's exactly how the OP started their less than persuasive bullshìt. You two don't know each other do you? "Use me once shame on you, use me twice, now you gotta pay me!" kinda thing going on, bitta scissor action?

No? Oh well, worth a try, just like the way you tried to discredit me at every turn in this discussion.





Soupy I'd sooner shìt in my own hands and clap, to be perfectly honest about it.

The day I would consider working with a clown (actually I WOULD love to work with CK, not all clowns are idiots!) will be the day I see a sex worker standing in the window of Brown Thomas in stockings and suspenders, combing his long brunette hair.

I think your posts have descended into projection and extremely inaccurate personal insults, and are no longer worthy of reading, let alone response.

aare

Czarcasm wrote: »

These people get in contact with me for help, I don't HAVE to go to them. I don't impose anything on them.

Nobody has a problem with that until you cross the line into aspiring to use legislation to impose your opinions on the choices of sex workers who have no interest in your input.

Czarcasm

Grayson wrote: »

Alrthough I'm sure there are heartless bastards who would say she deserved it, it's her choice, no-one forced her do do heroin, etc... I'm not one of them. Although, she must have sunk really low to be on Jeremy Kyle.

I'll agree about 10% with them. It is her fault, she's the one who made those choices. She might have had a horrible upbringing or have been abused. Or she might have been dim, seen trainspotting and thought, that looks cool.

But either way, it's a horrible position to be in. And one can only feel sorry for her. But in this case, the addiction is the problem, not the prostitution. She needs help. She needs to get off those drugs.

And here's the thing. Legal or illegal, she would still be doing that to get money. She's a drug addict, making it illegal won't stop her.

And regulating will help others, who are not drug addicts/trafficked/etc but have actually chosen it.

Your assessment is pretty much spot on Grayson and is what I've been saying all throughout this thread- I don't have any issue with somebody who chooses of their own free will to become a sex worker.

As most of the captain obvious posters have pointed out, it's none of my business as their choices don't affect me personally. I know plenty who are willing sex workers and working in the sex industry who are doing incredibly well for themselves.

To me it's just their career the same as teachers, solicitors, bin women and business men. To me personally- what you do, doesn't define who you are as a person. I personally am only interested in the person, not what they do for a living, their background, or their personal circumstances.

aare implied I had a superiority complex, when indeed quite the opposite is true- I shop in Penneys for my clothes and buy my groceries in Tesco, I live in a modest apartment in a modest part of town.

Money is an insignificant to me, but I'm not naive enough to think it isn't important to other people who place value in it and use it to trade for goods and services. I have enough money to do me and take care of my family and those I care about long into the future, but I personally couldn't care less about it, I was born with none and I can't take it with me when I die.

That is why I do what I do for free, and my time costs nothing. Like sex, it is an infinite resource. I would hope I have given my son the tools that by the time his balls are descended he will be able to make his own way in life and have the information and education to enable him to make informed decisions about whatever he wants to do with his life. That is HIS personal responsibility.


Now, with that said, just on the bolded bit- I've said all along that nobody NEEDS to trade in sex or use sex as a commodity. I firmly stand by that.

I also firmly believe that you cannot regulate an infinitely available resource, and any attempt to do so, creates an artificially constructed market. The "property boom" being a classic example of an artificially created and inflated market- everybody thought they "NEEDED" to get on the property ladder before prices went too high and they were priced out of the market.

I myself was subjected to "would your son not like a back garden to play in? etc.", to which my reply was always "he has two acres of a back garden not 50 yards from his front door- the park, and plenty of children his own age to play with too, he doesn't have to confine himself to a 10ft by 10ft bit of grass out the back that people are calling a garden nowadays".

I learned to call their facial reaction the "Ooh get YOU!" expression, whereas it wasn't me being the smug up my own àrse bastard at all. I was looked down upon by others because I didn't have two jags in the driveway (I don't even own a car, €10k was more than it was worth to adapt a personal vehicle for my particular mobility disability, and I didn't want to risk putting other drivers on the road in danger!), personal choice that a combination of public transport and getting around on a crutch works for me, though one of my friends confined permanently to a wheelchair wouldn't be without her adapted car- works for her, and trust me she could hold her own with the best at silverstone, likes to scare the shìt out of me in the passenger seat when she takes a hairpin bend doing a nifty fifty in her Nissan 350Z, or her "fair lady" as she calls it!

"Fair smell" I call it, once I'm able to get out and put my feet on solid ground again! :pac:


Anyway, you get the idea, nobody NEEDS an infinitely available resource, and only fools would pay for the fancy packaging marketed by cleverer people than you or I

Czarcasm

aare wrote: »

Nobody has a problem with that until you cross the line into aspiring to use legislation to impose your opinions on the choices of sex workers who have no interest in your input.

It's not ME imposing anything. You need to talk to your elected political officials (avoid Michael Noonan though, he has no problem with imposing his will to destroy a woman's life, he did it back in '97 when he was the minister for health and people with incredibly short memories STILL put him back in government!).

If anyone here is trying to impose their will, it's the sex workers from the UK who want to lobby the Irish government to change the law to suit them. The government though has to consider the interests of an Irish population of nearly seven million people, not just the seven thousand or even seven hundred thousand that want to advocate for the law to be changed to accommodate the will of the sex industry.

The fact you cannot see the irony in the phrase "no interest in your input" given the subject of the thread, indeed amuses me. The justice committee has no interest in your input either, but were this discussion ever to transcend the realms of merely a hypothetical discussion, I'd wager my input as a former sex worker and my experience working with current sex workers every day, would trump your opinion any day.


ps. If the discussion ever does transcend the hypothetical, I would hope advocates for the regulation of the sex industry would choose a far better representative than your good self.

CK37 at least would make a far more articulate and intellectual representative, while Soupy would bring some balance to the discussion with their incredible knack for collating data and analysing references and translating them in a way your average layperson would easily understand.

One day you'll learn that the mind is far more powerful than the body when you close your legs and open your mind instead. I've also got real life stuff to take care of so I'll leave the last word to the person I personally feel is best qualified to have an opinion this issue and who answered you best when she said-

CK73 wrote: »

I never expected you to act like a condescending arse hole. Guess my perception will change over time of many posters.

CK37, postcount: 69, brilliant!

aare

Czarcasm wrote: »

If anyone here is trying to impose their will, it's the sex workers from the UK who want to lobby the Irish government to change the law to suit them.

You don't know the first thing about this issue do you? (...but don't let that stop you pontificating.)

A cartel founded by three laundry orders (Mercy, Charity, Good Shepherd - from behind their shiney, new rebranded fronts) has been campaigning, exceptionally dishonestly, to further criminalise the sex industry for several years so that they can ringfence their funding and influence at the expense of sexworkers.

This campaign is now at committee stage.

Czarcasm

aare wrote: »

You don't know the first thing about this issue do you? (...but don't let that stop you pontificating.)

A cartel founded by three laundry orders (Mercy, Charity, Good Shepherd - from behind their shiney, new rebranded fronts) has been campaigning, exceptionally dishonestly, to further criminalise the sex industry for several years so that they can ringfence their funding and influence at the expense of sexworkers.

This campaign is now at committee stage.

As opposed to the cartel of more affluent UK and European sex workers

- From behind THEIR shiny new rebranded fronts (Escort Ireland, etc), campaigning exceptionally dishonestly (just look at the opening post that started this thread, and the OP that hasn't been back to it since!), to further legislate for the sex industry so that they can ringfence their funding and influence at the expense of less affluent Irish fools.

Their campaign is at the going nowhere fast stage, and the only people they're fooling are the idiots who are willing to part with their money for an infinitely available resource.

Fools and their money, easily parted. The same fools who never give a thought to anyone else but themselves. The Irish government doesn't have that luxury and has to legislate like I said, for ALL it's citizens, not just the sexually obsessed minority of fools that need protecting from themselves.


Feel free to pontificate further, or we can drop this now and get back to discussing the all issues at hand. I'd love to continue this battle of wits with you but you're obviously unarmed, and I don't think it's fair that we take up the whole thread with a bitchy back and forth when there might be other posters who would like to express their opinion but are put off by this back and forth which just looks bad and doesn't further the discussion in any way, shape or form.

SoupMonster

Grayson wrote: »

That's a bit of the streach of the imagination. You're decending into solipism. "I can't know anything with 100% certainty, therefore I'm raping her". Even if she's 100% behind it, it's still rape? Seriously, pull the other one.

I said that "one might argue". I did not say that was the case, and I know it is probably a bit of a stretch. It depends on what is defined by "reckless" and that depends on the conditions. So this is judged on a case-by-case basis.

But it would take only one persuasive barrister and one sympathetic jury to redefine what is 'reckless' in this regard.

Stranger things have happened in court.

aare

Czarcasm wrote: »

As opposed to the cartel of more affluent UK and European sex workers

- From behind THEIR shiny new rebranded fronts (Escort Ireland, etc), campaigning exceptionally dishonestly (just look at the opening post that started this thread, and the OP that hasn't been back to it since!), to further legislate for the sex industry so that they can ringfence their funding and influence at the expense of less affluent Irish fools.

Their campaign is at the going nowhere fast stage, and the only people they're fooling are the idiots who are willing to part with their money for an infinitely available resource.

Fools and their money, easily parted. The same fools who never give a thought to anyone else but themselves. The Irish government doesn't have that luxury and has to legislate like I said, for ALL it's citizens, not just the sexually obsessed minority of fools that need protecting from themselves.


Feel free to pontificate further, or we can drop this now and get back to discussing the all issues at hand. I'd love to continue this battle of wits with you but you're obviously unarmed, and I don't think it's fair that we take up the whole thread with a bitchy back and forth when there might be other posters who would like to express their opinion but are put off by this back and forth which just looks bad and doesn't further the discussion in any way, shape or form.

NOW I know who you are...nice try.

Nodin

SoupMonster wrote: »

..........

Finally, she is not a bad looking woman. But 'communication for the purposes of prostitution' is currently illegal in this country. Is there any legal way that I could attend her meeting and ask her to engage in reverse oral stimulation with me for a duration of 15 minutes for renumeration of Euro40? I am quite prepared to do this (the stimulaton) in public, on the podium, as the climax of the meeting, because I quite like her hair, and she has a nice smile, and I saw her picture on a website, and I have never done that before, and it would be an adventure, and it has that hint of danger, and I never has a Spanish woman before, and I hope I dont get caught, and my wife would kill me, and I want to come in something strange (basically the reason anyone buys sex). Seriously, if there is a legal way, I will go out to UCD and ask her in public, and if she calls my bluff I will strip her in public and eat me some troll pussy.

If you do know her, and I have judged the book incorrectly form the web-content cover, then you may tell her

• that her hairstyle is very nice, bohemian style suits her
• she is good looking
• she can write very well when she wants to
• that she really should tone down some of her blog posts so she doesn't come across as a troll
• she should apply what she demands of others, data, to herself
• that she does come across as very heartless
• that she should not be so accepting of deb-bondage
• that I think she secretly loves Kristof, she seems obsessed with him!

....in no way weird or creepy.....

aare

Nodin wrote: »

....in no way weird or creepy.....

My thoughts exactly...

Czarcasm

aare wrote: »

NOW I know who you are...nice try.

Nodin wrote: »

....in no way weird or creepy.....

aare wrote: »

My thoughts exactly...

No but seriously Clarice, when are you coming over for dinner? Some fava beans and a nice chianti, I've got some killer business cards I'd like you to have a look at.

I'm sure by now you know where I live too, as do plenty of people, you're more than welcome to drop in any time, heroin addicts to the left, homeless people to the right, you'll have to squeeze in there somewhere in the middle.

Nodin

Czarcasm wrote: »

No but seriously Clarice, when are you coming over for dinner? Some fava beans and a nice chianti, I've got some killer business cards I'd like you to have a look at.

I'm sure by now you know where I live too, as do plenty of people, you're more than welcome to drop in any time, heroin addicts to the left, homeless people to the right, you'll have to squeeze in there somewhere in the middle.

Two of those comments aren't related or addressed to you.

Czarcasm

Nodin wrote: »

Two of those comments aren't related or addressed to you.

A poster on boards.ie says to another poster they know who they are, I agree with you, it IS creepy, and juvenile, it lowers the tone of the discussion to the mental intellect of a rotten peach.

Of course you're more than welcome to join us Nodin and we can have our own justice league committee putting the world to rights, one wrong at a time.

There will be no coke and hookers though, just so you all know. That stuff is illegal. Maybe we could address it at our next meeting.

Nodin

Czarcasm wrote: »

A poster on boards.ie says to another poster they know who they are, I agree with you, it IS creepy, and juvenile, it lowers the tone of the discussion to the mental intellect of a rotten peach.

.....

Thats all well and dandy, but dragging both my and unrelated commentary into it is taking the piss, tbh.

Czarcasm

Nodin wrote: »

Thats all well and dandy, but dragging both my and unrelated commentary into it is taking the piss, tbh.

Duly noted Nodin, and you're absolutely right.

Now let's all move on and try to keep this discussion above the amoebic level.

I'd rather not see this thread locked when the Mods feel it's descended yet again into petty jibes, points scoring and thanks seeking.

I'd like to see us all discuss the issues like mature individuals, adults, people above the age of consent so to speak.

aare

Nodin wrote: »

Two of those comments aren't related or addressed to you.

Who knows? Perhaps unbeknownst to us they were?

SoupMonster

Grayson wrote: »

That's a bit of the streach of the imagination. You're decending into solipism. "I can't know anything with 100% certainty, therefore I'm raping her". Even if she's 100% behind it, it's still rape? Seriously, pull the other one.

Grayson, did a bit of digging on what is consent. Complicated stuff. But I will give you a document regarding consent, (obviously anti-prostitution perspective, I did not find a pro-prostitution article that attempted to define what is consent).

Additionally, Capacity to consent to sexual relationships
relates to people with learning difficulties.

Now consider the scenario:
Your first time in Spain, alone, bored, had 2 beers already, walking back to hotel. You see a 'club', you walk in, club is small, is like a bar with seating for about 15 people, not a 'club' as you understand it. You don't speak Spanish. You order a beer. There are 3 girls behind the bar and you are the only customer. Girl-A chats to you in English, girl-B has a few words of English, girl-C obviously does not speak English, she's a bit quiet and so you pay very little intention.

When almost finished the drink, girl-A asks it you want to have sex with girl-C. You cant believe it, doesn't look like a brothel, but this is your first time in Spain, and your first time in a brothel. Is this a brothel, are brothels legal, who cares? Girl-B tells you it will cost Eur67.50. Now you find it funny, why the odd price? Anyway Girl-A encourages you, says Girl-C is Albanian, very nice, sexy, you will enjoy, very good, just go downstairs with Girl-C. Girl-C just looks at you, with a kind of 'whatever' look. In 5 seconds you decide, you agree and pay.

Downstairs, small room, 2 beds. You point at one bed and say 'Here', she points and nods yes. No more attempts at talking from here on, its pointless. Strip, bang, finished. You go back upstairs, girl-C is showering. Its obvious you are not welcome to stay for another drink, leave. Thanks, bye, smiles all round.

Wandering back to hotel, you reflect on the Eur67.50, what an odd price, why not round it up?
End of scenario.

Consent is situational. You are required by law not to be 'reckless' and to 'genuinely believe'.

You knew absolutely nothing about girl-C, her demeanour was a bit 'restrained', she was ambivalent and made no indications at all when you looked at her deciding what to do. You reckoned that all was OK. The legal niceties of consent are beyond you. You think it is the absence of the words 'No' and Stop'. You don't know that you are supposed to 'genuinely believe'. So your decision is based on your wondering what to do next, it is not an assessment of consent. And once you have decided and paid, there is no looking back, decision made, you are gung ho, looking forward to some Albanian nookie.

Once penetrated, the deed is done.
So cold stares into the distance post-penetration, crying afterwards, none of that noticed in this tale, but would be irrelevant anyway.

You did not 'genuinely believe', your 'reckoned'.
On a scale of 0 (Total disbelief) to 100 (Totally convinced) where do 'genuinely believe' and 'reckoned' fall.
If 'reckoned' is below 'genuinely believed', then you must accept that you may have just raped girl-C.
You cannot be sure, because you know nothing of her or her situation. Was she under duress and all she gave was complicity not consent? Maybe she has learning difficulties and the issues of consent are more complex. If, by chance, these apply, then you have indeed just raped her.

Ask yourself, if that scenario describes girl-C's life, and she is stuck there for 2 years, and you were one of the nice ones who is not abusive or violent, what kind of trauma is she suffering? How many men does she 'see' in a week, a year. Do you think she can just shrug her shoulders and walk away and live happily ever after? Does she look at a L'oreal ad and say 'because I'm worth it!'. She is worth precisely Eur67.50 including government tax for Christ sake. This girls life is destroyed, there is no escaping it.

How can anyone in their right mind, pity a girl being raped on her way home from the supermarket, and show no compassion whatsoever to other girls who are trapped, threatened, abused, raped. Do they need to be murdered before we care?

I realise that girl-C's situation is very different from the women posting here and is not typical, its not even a horror story, but girl-C was real.

Nodin

SoupMonster wrote: »

Grayson, (..........) but girl-C was real.

I find your use of this thread to trot out your prostitute encounter fantasies more than disturbing.

aare

Nodin wrote: »

I find your use of this thread to trot out your prostitute encounter fantasies more than disturbing.

That concerns me too...but as an aside, it seems insane to me that people can sit and analyse and define every nuance of a person's behaviour in terms of how she feels about sex and whether that constitutes consent yet not give a flying feck to even find out how she really feels about the way they misrepresent her and the plans they have made, not just for a sexual act, but for her whole life...

To get back on topic, if you wouldn't consider the word of a third party to constitute consent to sex then you should not be gagging people and taking the word of third parties about their whole lives either...

SoupMonster

Grayson wrote: »

And regulating will help others, who are not drug addicts/trafficked/etc but have actually chosen it.

Grayson, I know Czarcasm responded to this.

I will contribute some info only. In my efforts to be fully informed I have read all I can on both sides of the argument. And regarding regulation I have gleamed:-

Career prostitutes generally do not want be regulated. Thus places like Australia and Germany have informal sectors that are estimated to be twice as large as the legal sector.

Most importantly, they do not want to be 'outed' it involves social stigma. One of the 'benefits' of regulation is that it provides assess to state benefits, social insurance and all. Many (50% ?, I cant recall) forego these benefits, they do not want to interact with government services where they are on record as career=prostitute.

They don't mind paying taxes, but perceive that they get nothing in return, not even police protection, or protection from the police. This is still an issue.

Regulation often means brothel work under someone else's direction, resulting in a loss of freedom, loss of earnings, loss of choice, all the things that compensate for the stigma.

Regulation is supposed to increase safety, but it has no impact for the safety of call-outs. 'Living off the avails' sometimes still applies in regulated environments, meaning no drivers/bodyguards.

Sometimes the regulation allows work from one-person brothels, and forbids working from home. There is no safety increase here, arguably more dangerous.

Regulation, generally conforms to the 'out-of-sight' principle, confining workers to out-of-the-way geographic zones, etc.

Regulation attempts to ensure medical safety for the Johns. Shown to be a useless concept since a worker could have sex with up to 50 people before the results of the last test are available, and there is no testing requirement on customers. Besides, most surveys show that workers are the cleanest members of society.

For casual workers. Regulation is pointless, they generally only work when the need the money, end-of-month, Christmas,... Prostitute is not their identity.

Transients, touring workers. No regulation thanks, I'm only working few weeks/months.

What sex-workers really want is to retain the 'benefits' that cause them to continue to work:-

• Flexibility: Work when they please, as much or as little as they need.
• Mobility: Ease of movement between locations, cities
• Compensation: Retain their high earnings, not be forced to pay brothel-keepers.

They want improvements in:-

• Security: A safe place to work where they are not at risk, ie not alone.
• Protection: Protection by police like any other citizen.
• Respectability: The stigma is a huge downside, maybe more important than the security/protection issues.

Regulation negatively impacts on the first three, and so far has not delivered enough on the second three. And it has no benefit whatsoever on those who want to stay informal.

The Th!ng

SoupMonster wrote: »

Has anyone asked the people of the country whether they wanted prostitution to be criminalised/decriminalised/legalised, in any country? No.

Reading this reminded me of TORL's often quoted claim that they have the support of the unions, they absolutely do not though, no union balloted it's members in support of TORL or against, yet they happily proclaim union support anyway in order to make it look like they have more supporters than they actually do.

[Edit]
Prostitutes pay tax in Sweden, can avail of social welfare, yet their clients are criminalised.

SoupMonster

aare wrote: »

That concerns me too...but as an aside, it seems insane to me that people can sit and analyse and define every nuance of a person's behaviour in terms of how she feels about sex and whether that constitutes consent yet not give a flying feck to even find out how she really feels about the way they misrepresent her and the plans they have made, not just for a sexual act, but for her whole life...

To get back on topic, if you wouldn't consider the word of a third party to constitute consent to sex then you should not be gagging people and taking the word of third parties about their whole lives either...

OK. Concern noted.

It is not a fantasy. It is a true account as I remember it. I have told you what I was thinking at the time, how I behaved, how much attention I actually gave to the consent issue, and you can read into it how much respect I gave to the woman.

As I read up on this prostitution issue, I learned of the dreadful situations that
some of girls find themselves in. This memory is playing on my mind, as are a number of similar memories. I feel ashamed, and I feel guilty. I never set out to harm anyone. I hate thinking that those girls were not willingly working, that I contributed to their torment, but that is now I feel. I wish I could roll back time and not make those choices, but I cant.

Here is a comment from someone on another thread here:-
"I have visited 100+ prostitutes in Ireland in the past 12 years. 95% of the time, the lady whom I spoke with on the phone was the same one who answered the door. The remaining 5% did seem a bit off as if perhaps they were being coerced somewhat, but not "forced" as to make it "rape". 5% isn't a bad number. Definitely not enough to justify the attempts to shut down the entire industry."

Obviously any small attempt I have made to try to change perceptions or influence views are a complete and total waste of time, when this guy is perfectly willing to proceed with the 5% he thinks are coerced. He thinks there is a dividing line between "coerced" and "forced". Maybe you would like to educate him aare. Or do you hold to the belief that third-party consent is sufficient?

I would be delighted to see purchasers criminalised, and that guy convicted. He should be very happy to get away with a fine/slap on wrist/name in newspaper, otherwise he could be looking at years in prison. Maybe if it was criminal, I would not have chosen to do what I did, maybe I would not have had the opportunities present themselves so easily, maybe I would not have been such a heartless bastard.

I am leaving this thread and will not be posting again.

CK73

SoupMonster wrote: »

OK. Concern noted.

It is not a fantasy. It is a true account as I remember it. I have told you what I was thinking at the time, how I behaved, how much attention I actually gave to the consent issue, and you can read into it how much respect I gave to the woman.

As I read up on this prostitution issue, I learned of the dreadful situations that
some of girls find themselves in. This memory is playing on my mind, as are a number of similar memories. I feel ashamed, and I feel guilty. I never set out to harm anyone. I hate thinking that those girls were not willingly working, that I contributed to their torment, but that is now I feel. I wish I could roll back time and not make those choices, but I cant.

Here is a comment from someone on another thread here:-
"I have visited 100+ prostitutes in Ireland in the past 12 years. 95% of the time, the lady whom I spoke with on the phone was the same one who answered the door. The remaining 5% did seem a bit off as if perhaps they were being coerced somewhat, but not "forced" as to make it "rape". 5% isn't a bad number. Definitely not enough to justify the attempts to shut down the entire industry."

Obviously any small attempt I have made to try to change perceptions or influence views are a complete and total waste of time, when this guy is perfectly willing to proceed with the 5% he thinks are coerced. He thinks there is a dividing line between "coerced" and "forced". Maybe you would like to educate him aare. Or do you hold to the belief that third-party consent is sufficient?

I would be delighted to see purchasers criminalised, and that guy convicted. He should be very happy to get away with a fine/slap on wrist/name in newspaper, otherwise he could be looking at years in prison. Maybe if it was criminal, I would not have chosen to do what I did, maybe I would not have had the opportunities present themselves so easily, maybe I would not have been such a heartless bastard.

I am leaving this thread and will not be posting again.

I think he has badly explained what he means. It sounds like it was the lady he was seeing talking to him on the phone, but they didn't seem 'keen' to take the booking or perhaps lacked enthusiasm. Now you could surmise that this means they are being coerced, or it could just mean they have had a long day and were in two minds as to if they really wanted to take the booking for not. Generally if you are talking to the lady on the phone and the number is not known to be used by anyone else, then she is likely working of her own free will. That doesn't always mean you feel in the best of moods though and most ladies soon work out it is best to stop before you get to that point, or you quickly become jaded and stop enjoying the work. Some however do work themselves too hard and burn out quickly. These tend to move on and leave Sex Work after a short time.

Hopefully he has learned from analysing his past not to go ahead with bookings where he has doubt and not to continue with them. At least he was brave enough to admit that he was unsure of how willing they were to participate, but I think if he had truly felt they were trafficked he would have not gone through with the booking.

There are of course those that would enjoy the fact that a lady was trafficked and get a buzz from it and yes those men should be locked up and have the key thrown away, but I believe the law already allows for that?

CK73

Oh I put my submission in by the way. Apparently it hit Ireland today, so should be on the desk first thing Monday morning

Czarcasm

CK73 wrote: »

Oh I put my submission in by the way. Apparently it hit Ireland today, so should be on the desk first thing Monday morning

Hopefully your submission gets a hearing CK and it won't have been your time wasted.


I wouldn't hold my breath though tbh.