Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
So is prostitution to be outlawed in Ireland or what?
Options
Comments
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »Fleek you make some good points, and I agree with you about the likes of the way Ruhama and the Immigration Council of Ireland operate (said as much earlier in the thread myself), even if I find you're being a tad hyperbolic tbh.
But the bit I've highlighted in bold there - "sex workers rights are women's rights", what? Sex workers rights are sex workers rights, and that includes both women, and men, in the industry, not just women. Many of the sex worker organisations though are just as good at remembering that male sex workers exist as Ruhama and the Immigration Council of Ireland, that is to say - not very bloody good at remembering that fact at all, let alone so much as acknowledging their existence or indeed paying any attention to their welfare beyond a mere token effort as long as they might fit that organisations' profile and get with their program.
Do you think the State takes any better care of men or something? There are many men, and many male sex workers, who would say the very same thing about themselves, as you have said about women.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out either that if prostitution is driven underground (was it ever really overground?), that many people working as sex workers will take more risks than they do already and will likely forego using protection in order to be able to continue to work and earn money. That happens already, just not to the same degree among the more affluent and well educated people who choose to engage in sex work and see it as legitimate employment. They're not desperate, whereas someone who is engaged in sex work to survive? There's nothing they won't do for money, and your so-called 'punters', 'clients', call them whatever the hell you like to make them sound respectable, they know this, and they exploit it.
You don't get to blame the State for that, you don't get to blame Ruhama for that, you don't get to blame the Immigration Council of Ireland for that. You don't even get to blame people who are sex workers for that. Put the blame squarely where it belongs - on the people who would seek to exploit other people's misery and destitution. Those people aren't 'punters', they aren't 'clients', they're scumbags, and it's they who should be treated as such by society, not the people whom they exploit, while those scumbags are seen as respectable, upstanding members of the community... :rolleyes:
Really boils my piss sometimes the way in these threads single digit posters advocating for sex work to be made legal, and bitching about "poor working class punters being criminalised", they really couldn't give a fcuk about them, at least be honest and say that it's about money rather than trying to portray yourselves as the tarts with hearts. It's a joke, and anyone who has worked in the industry for any length of time will smell bulls.hit insincere patter like that a mile off.
So you think society should treat punters as 'scumbags' and criminalise them for paying for sex while at the same time you're acknowledging that doing so will drive prostitution further underground and cause increased risks to sex workers? Are you so eager to have punters locked up and punished that you'll sacrifice the well-being of the sex workers you seem to be so concerned about?0 -
there are no grey areas or nuance in Jackies world
all men are scumbags and all sex workers are victims, and the facts be damned0 -
Connacht15 wrote: »So an on the spot fine aá the new cycling fines is it?
Ah jasus don't say that. I believe the Guards will seize your bike if you can't identify yourself when they are issuing an on the spot cycling fine,what will they seize on a john.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »You don't get to blame the State for that, you don't get to blame Ruhama for that, you don't get to blame the Immigration Council of Ireland for that. You don't even get to blame people who are sex workers for that. Put the blame squarely where it belongs - on the people who would seek to exploit other people's misery and destitution. Those people aren't 'punters', they aren't 'clients', they're scumbags, and it's they who should be treated as such by society, not the people whom they exploit, while those scumbags are seen as respectable, upstanding members of the community... :rolleyes:
One eyed Jack, that's more than harsh, that's really hateful.
You know how you said money creates a "conflict", so therefore women can't be trusted on what they say or want to do? Don't you think money also creates a "conflict" in... well... EVERYTHING? It's hard to think of specific examples when it's literally everything. I don't like money either, but I'm forced to use it for food and stuff.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Those people aren't 'punters', they aren't 'clients', they're scumbags, and it's they who should be treated as such by society, not the people whom they exploit, while those scumbags are seen as respectable, upstanding members of the community... :rolleyes:
Took a while Jack, but good to see the mask slip.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
The Prostitution Unit of the Stockholm Police in Sweden arrests a man for the buying of sex according to the so-called sex purchase law in Sweden which criminalizes the buying of sex but not the selling. Clip was originally broadcast in the Swedish TV-show called "Crime of the Week" in 2014. As a newbie, I cannot post links directly but if you Google this you should get it without the spaces -
www. youtube.com/ watch?v=
OofRzb5gDBE
This client is caught out because the police ask him her name when he leaves and the name he gave them was her working name (obviously not her real name). He admitted to it and was given a fine. Good job she was working alone or she would have been arrested too (yes that's right, just like in the UK it is illegal to sell sex in Sweden/Ireland in a brothel).
There's certainly some prima facie evidence as has been mentioned that she is a victim of trafficking! The Swedish so called police, wouldn't give a **** about that as this law guarantees that trafficking, nasty pimping and psychotic clients will flourish! The Swedish police are also pre-programmed by Swedish society into believing that female sex workers are all essentially mentally ill!
It has been suggested that the punters mistake was his admission, but the punter will know he will be arrested in any case (also have his DNA taken and compared to all DNA on outstanding rapes, child molestation and murders by the sex police!), he will also be aware that his non admission of guilt will encourage the Police to put pressure on the lady e.g. confiscation of earnings oh and yes, threats to put her children into care (after all she is perceived by these nut jobs to be the one who is mentally ill!).
Incidently those Swedish Police would easily pass for Knackers here in Ireland!0 -
How Fascist of you, obviously a Blueshirt lover, nobody is entitled to have an opinion except you and you obviously haven't checked facts and are spreading misinformation such as this insane law change has been brought about by an EU directive - it most certainly has not!One eyed Jack wrote: »Really boils my piss sometimes the way in these threads single digit posters advocating for sex work to be made legal, and bitching about "poor working class punters being criminalised", they really couldn't give a fcuk about them, at least be honest and say that it's about money rather than trying to portray yourselves as the tarts with hearts. It's a joke, and anyone who has worked in the industry for any length of time will smell bulls.hit insincere patter like that a mile off.
THE RIGHT OF CONSENTING ADULTS TO ENGAGE WITH EACH OTHER IN PRIVATE MUST BE KEPT!0 -
Connacht15 wrote: »THE RIGHT OF CONSENTING ADULTS TO ENGAGE WITH EACH OTHER IN PRIVATE MUST BE KEPT!
This I agree with 100%0 -
Telling to Google the provenance of one eyed jack's "good article on this topic"
MercatorNet (also known as Mercator) is a magazine which has been online since 2004. Its focus is parenting/family issues, bioethics, religion, philosophy and entertainment. MercatorNet aims to be a voice for human dignity and it hammers this home in its articles.
In the "what we stand for" section of the website, the magazine says:
"We place the person at the centre of media debates about popular culture, the family, sexuality, bioethics, religion and law".
*shudders*
Short take on this:
We all work for money, doing stuff we wouldn't do for free, with people we wouldn't be with for free. Rubbish argument.
Govt has no business getting involved in consensual sex. It has business in regulating financial transactions, granted, and where there are concerns over health, safety, trafficking it absolutely must be involved.
Lobby groups/activists/internet personae with madyoke strong opinions on what adults should be allowed to do with their bodies (FOR THEIR OWN GOOD I TELL YA) should be given short shrift, not a monopoly invite to advise govt.
This proposal will one day seem as strange as a ban on homosexuality.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »T
Short take on this:
We all work for money, doing stuff we wouldn't do for free, with people we wouldn't be with for free. Rubbish argument.
Govt has no business getting involved in consensual sex. It has business in regulating financial transactions, granted, and where there are concerns over health, safety, trafficking it absolutely must be involved.
Lobby groups/activists/internet personae with madyoke strong opinions on what adults should be allowed to do with their bodies (FOR THEIR OWN GOOD I TELL YA) should be given short shrift, not a monopoly invite to advise govt.
This proposal will one day seem as strange as a ban on homosexuality.
The ban on homosexual acts between consenting males here was overturned in Europe due to the right to privacy, this is an obvious route, where this insane law will be thrown out also!0 -
A Regular John wrote: »At the end of the day the state cannot prove that happens behind the closed doors of the apartments. I could be there for a chat for all they know. I just wish that the state, feminazis and nuns would keep the fcuk out of my business and leave me and my fellow johns alone.
Why am I not surprised that a man who regularly uses prostitutes would call women that oppose prostitution "feminazis"? Oh, I know why, because men who use prostitutes really are easy to generalize and judge negatively.Mister Vain wrote: »They come from all walks of life, and there's no exploitation when there's two consenting adults involved.
Think about this for a minute. Think about all the illegal Mexican immigrants in the US who work for people voluntarily (in order to get in to the country and make money) and do so for far less money than a legal immigrant, and with absolutely no workers' rights. Are you telling me that they aren't being exploited by their employers?Mister Vain wrote: »The real scumbags are the people who are responsible for the trafficking, but the sex workers in this country that are trafficked are in the minority.
Whatever you do, don't tell that to nokia69, as he posted earlier in the thread about investigations in the uk and how they found not a single woman working against her will :rolleyes:. I mean, like it's even humanly possible for not one. single. prostitute. to be there against her will. As if.
Anyways, it's completely obvious to me that the reason prostitution has been illegal is because it's incredibly difficult to regulate and therefore, tax. And there's no government on Earth who wants someone to get away with paying no taxes. Much like what's going on in the US in regards to pot, they're going to have to have an entire arm of the police and courts in order to enforce the regulations. Which, of course, will be passed on to taxpayers who do not avail of such services. Yay for us. Oh and for those who think that prostitution won't increase if it's legalized, I can only assume that you really haven't spent much time in american states that have legalized pot. Cuz I sure have, and whereas before pot was used occasionally at parties and by real hippy types, you can't swing a dead cat in these places anymore without hitting someone who uses pot on a regular basis. I have a distant relative who I run into at family functions who went from a once-a-weeker to someone who smokes pot like a person does cigarettes--multiple times a day. Admittedly, he's an imbecile and whether or not it's immoral is outside the scope of this thread, but it's a very similar argument to prostitution.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »The awful stuff that goes on within it now even though it is legalised and regulated in other countries still goes on, and I agree would likely to continue to go on when the Swedish model is introduced.
But that is no excuse to throw our hands up and make things worse by turning the whole thing illegal and pushing it further underground. I have not seen anyone claim that legalising it and regulating it has been a 100% success so far. It never is - on any subject. We have to do it - observe the results - feed those results back into the regulation to change and improve it - and continue on getting it as "right" as we can.
And this is the same in any industry. The clothing industry for example has horrors going on in it even today. Under paid workers. Child Slave Labour. And more. Yet we do not give up and say "Right the clothing industry is just bad - make it illegal". Instead we improve our regulation - and our powers to go after the people doing it badly and wrong - and we do our best to get it right for all concerned.
THAT is the correct response here too. Regulation so far has not been perfect? FINE - study the problem - find out why - and improve the laws and regulation. Meanwhile engage in a campaign at a social level to reduce the stigma of the career itself - so when people in that industry need help they actually seek it.
The intellectually lazy and brankrupt approach of just throwing our hands in the air - making it illegal - and giving up will help no one - will be a step backwards - and all the reasons we had at the time for wanting to make it legal and regulated will come back - maybe worse than before.One eyed Jack wrote: »I have given you the definition of consent (which is free will to engage in sexual intercourse)
And you also claimed that money changing hands magically turns this into being coerced. A fantastical claim that you have yet to support with any explanation at all. Perhaps you will today?One eyed Jack wrote: »I think you'd only continue to waste your time and that's very unfair to you, from my perspective at least.
Given it is entirely my concern how - where - and why - I invest my time - I think you can stop using it as a cop out excuse for dodging direct questions now.One eyed Jack wrote: »I don't see any point in either of us engaging when we are unlikely ever to see eye to eye on any discussion we enter into, so perhaps it's best for both our sanities if we just leave it at that.
You can leave it any time you want. I however do not see it merely in terms of whether you and I see eye to eye or not. I see it ALSO in terms of a wider audience who read along on threads like this.
And at a social level when people spew complete nonsense I think it is useful to challenge them on it - keep tham talking - and let everyone ELSE see them flounder around with cop out excuses and dodges. It shows people how baseless and unsupported your position is. And this is a good thing.
The simple fact is there were claims of "reality based reasons" to support the idea of making sex for money illegal - and you have failed to present a single one of them. And that people see this and are made aware of it - that you and your ilk can not support this claim at all - is a good thing.
So you might feel you are wasting YOUR time - but I find mine well invested thanks very much. Keep up the good work of making my points and agenda for me.One eyed Jack wrote: »It's quite simple. There is more to prostitution and it's impact on society than your reductionist individual consenting adults scenario. It's an issue that has a negative impact on society.
And that is why we need regulation and improvements to help reduce the effect of that. The fact is that MANY things have a negative impact on society. We do not make them illegal in some haughty knee jerk nonsense because of it. Especially if making it illegal has a) other worse negative effects and b) invites us to compromise on other things we as a society hold dear like personal freedoms.One eyed Jack wrote: »The State cannot afford the luxury of your perfect scenarios which ignore the negative aspects of prostitution for many people
Except nothing about my position ignores any such thing - you have merely invented that to straw man a position you are unable to rebut. And as for the State being able to afford stuff - firstly if it was legal and taxed the State would be making an income from this - secondly the fact it is not illegal will reduce the quantity of things our police force has to invest time and resources into policing. So if YOU want to make an ECONOMIC argument on this topic you would have to show some numbers and show that a regulated, taxed, industry would cost the State more than policing an unregulated untaxed illegal one and running that through the courts etc etc. I await your workings with bated breath! You do have some right? Right???One eyed Jack wrote: »Yes, I suppose it's an equally insulting generalisation to people who campaign against prostitution to assume that they are motivated by feminism, or religion, or morality, or any of the rest of that crap
If you feel insulted by this then I am afraid you only have yourself to blame. Because it was YOU who claimed there was "reality based reasons" for campaigning against it - but then adamantly and consistently dodged - ducked - dived and retreated from _every_ attempt to get you to lay out what those reasons are.
So if you consistently contrive to leave people with nothing but their assumptions - you only have yourself to blame when those assumptions rise to the fore. The only way to erode those assumptions is to step up to the plate and lay out what the arguments actually are. Clue: Copy and pasting an article link that does nothing more than simply assert prostitution erodes your humanity - well - that ain't it.One eyed Jack wrote: »This definition reads: “A person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.”
Nice - now given that definition of consent I can not wait to hear how magically money changing hands constitutes "coercion" as you claimed earlier it does.One eyed Jack wrote: »Put the blame squarely where it belongs - on the people who would seek to exploit other people's misery and destitution. Those people aren't 'punters', they aren't 'clients', they're scumbags, and it's they who should be treated as such by society, not the people whom they exploit, while those scumbags are seen as respectable, upstanding members of the community...
Paying for sex with a sex slave - or someone else who is forced aganist their will into the trade - is scum baggery sure. But do not indict the innocent - people who just have paid sex with people who decided of their own free will to enter the trade - with their crimes merely because you have hang ups about prostitution. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with selling sex that I can see - or that you have shown - and there is also nothing wrong that I can see - or you have shown - with purchasing it.
I think it is pure desperation when people start indicting prostitution with the evils of trafficking for example. The two are not the same. In fact with MANY products - when there is a legal accepted product - there will be underground evil cheaper knock offs of it - the money from which goes on to further crimes and horrors in the world. Cigarettes. DVDs. You name it - and prostitution is no different. You will always get shady and evil characters trying to make money with cheaper unethically sourced alternatives.
And we do not indict those industries with those crimes there - so I have no idea why people do so here - other than to manufacture an argument against prostitution where they otherwise have none (despite claiming to have and then dodging when asked to lay them out).0 -
Think about this for a minute. Think about all the illegal Mexican immigrants in the US who work for people voluntarily (in order to get in to the country and make money) and do so for far less money than a legal immigrant, and with absolutely no workers' rights. Are you telling me that they aren't being exploited by their employers?
That's a completely different situation. For starters most sex workers in this country are independent and don't have an employer. An illegal immigrant working in the U.S for low pay is hardly comparable to an escort living in comfortable conditions in Ireland who makes upwards of 2 grand a week and gets to choose her own hours.Whatever you do, don't tell that to nokia69, as he posted earlier in the thread about investigations in the uk and how they found not a single woman working against her will
. I mean, like it's even humanly possible for not one. single. prostitute. to be there against her will.
Just because the police didn't find any doesn't mean there aren't any. But as was mentioned already, they're in the minority.0 -
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/nov/02/revealed-trafficked-migrant-workers-abused-in-irish-fishing-industry
Trafficked workers being used by some in the fishing industry
time to lock up anyone who pays for fish0 -
Mister Vain wrote: »That's a completely different situation. For starters most sex workers in this country are independent and don't have an employer. An illegal immigrant working in the U.S for low pay is hardly comparable to an escort living in comfortable conditions in Ireland who makes upwards of 2 grand a week and gets to choose her own hours.
Just because the police didn't find any doesn't mean there aren't any. But as was mentioned already, they're in the minority.
Well hold on, clearly I would be pro-sex work and it's legalisation but the issue illegal Migrant workers in the state really isn't all that different.
Admittedly am escorts on 200 euros an hour is not the same as an immigrant worker on 2, however, yet again an anti-sex work poster proves the point of the pro side.
Similar to how one working legally is no less likely to meet abuse, the legal sex worker -self employed or otherwise- is still open to abuse. Heck, retail workers even in this unionised, hyper-litagated era are open to abuse and exploitation. Just look at the recent bru ha contract workers with Amazon (and others) are causing.
With proper legislation, the otherwise legally upstanding individual engaged in Sex work could challenge their exploiters in a court of law.likewise with a clearer path towards naturalisation many would be illegals in America could defend themselves and rather quickly dismantle the myth that migrants only want benefits.
Back on point, in New Zealand since legalisation (with regulation) a sex worker has taken their employer to court. Could they have done so before?
In Ireland, from what I glean online and eavesdropping on the few women I know on the industry, legalisation of prostitution would make it easier for them to take cases against unfair landlords and employers who discover their past. Or lord forbid, would be pimps who attempt to blackmail them into working for them.0 -
Why am I not surprised that a man who regularly uses prostitutes would call women that oppose prostitution "feminazis"? Oh, I know why, because men who use prostitutes really are easy to generalize and judge negatively.
Think about this for a minute. Think about all the illegal Mexican immigrants in the US who work for people voluntarily (in order to get in to the country and make money) and do so for far less money than a legal immigrant, and with absolutely no workers' rights. Are you telling me that they aren't being exploited by their employers?
Whatever you do, don't tell that to nokia69, as he posted earlier in the thread about investigations in the uk and how they found not a single woman working against her will :rolleyes:. I mean, like it's even humanly possible for not one. single. prostitute. to be there against her will. As if.
Anyways, it's completely obvious to me that the reason prostitution has been illegal is because it's incredibly difficult to regulate and therefore, tax. And there's no government on Earth who wants someone to get away with paying no taxes. Much like what's going on in the US in regards to pot, they're going to have to have an entire arm of the police and courts in order to enforce the regulations. Which, of course, will be passed on to taxpayers who do not avail of such services. Yay for us. Oh and for those who think that prostitution won't increase if it's legalized, I can only assume that you really haven't spent much time in american states that have legalized pot. Cuz I sure have, and whereas before pot was used occasionally at parties and by real hippy types, you can't swing a dead cat in these places anymore without hitting someone who uses pot on a regular basis. I have a distant relative who I run into at family functions who went from a once-a-weeker to someone who smokes pot like a person does cigarettes--multiple times a day. Admittedly, he's an imbecile and whether or not it's immoral is outside the scope of this thread, but it's a very similar argument to prostitution.
There is no exploitation between two consenting adults exchanging money for Sexual services. There can't be otherwise its is rape.
In the scenario you describe I'm afraid to say,legally, not really. They are not a citizen of the state nor there in any capacity allowed by the many type of visas. The State,whichever state, must uphold the rights of its Citizens. Worst comes to worst the employer gets a slap on the wrist and his/her employees deported.
Intelligent as you are, are you really going to ignore the differences in culture and how they play into where one finds a higher number of unwilling Sex Workers?
New Zealand, Germany, and Nevada prove Sex Work is no more difficult to regulate than any other form of self-employment. An unwillingness to deal with sex work as it really is yet police it on moral grounds will still get passed on to the taxpayer.
As for the weed thing, alot more people smoke than are willing to admit. I would reckon the legalisation if pot in certain American states just allowed them to come out of the woodwork. (If there's one steadfast rule in America, it's do what you will but don't get caught)To the unaware observer this would seem like an increase.0 -
In Ireland, from what I glean online and eavesdropping on the few women I know on the industry, legalisation of prostitution would make it easier for them to take cases against unfair landlords and employers who discover their past. Or lord forbid, would be pimps who attempt to blackmail them into working for them.
Well actually a lot of escorts don't want to see it regulated because of that very reason. If they were to introduce the system they have in the Netherlands or Australia for example, then AKAIK they'd have to register and they'd lose their anonymity. The current system here is better for them in that regard as there's less chance of people finding out what they do.0 -
Mister Vain wrote: »Just because the police didn't find any doesn't mean there aren't any.
Exactly the point I was making. However, that seems to be completely lost on nono (I know how much nokia69 loves nicknames). Incidentally, earlier in the thread you were chastising One eyed jack because he called men who use prostitutes scumbags. Like it or not, this is a key reason many women--I really do believe it's mostly women-- are against prostitution. You take away the illegality of something and you take away the stigmatization of it and a lot of women don't like the idea of men buying women like a commodity without social and legal consequences. The poster A regular john is a perfect example of men who use prostitutes--referring to women as "regulars", hopping between 3 or 4 women to sexually gratify himself and labeling anyone who's against it a nun or feminazi; these are the hallmarks of those kind of men. Not that banning it is going to stop men who use prostitutes from treating women like sexually disposable products, but it will, of course, reduce it. And the men in this thread are just angry that One eyed jack had the guts to say it.0 -
In the scenario you describe I'm afraid to say,legally, not really. They are not a citizen of the state nor there in any capacity allowed by the many type of visas. The State,whichever state, must uphold the rights of its Citizens. Worst comes to worst the employer gets a slap on the wrist and his/her employees deported.
It doesn't matter if they are a citizen of the state. Exploitation is exploitation. If an American business owner treats an immigrant poorly, then that person is an exploiter. No law is going to justify it. And for the record, I'm staunchly anti-immigration, but I also recognize the role that many Americans play in the whole immigrant mess. The blame goes both ways.Intelligent as you are, are you really going to ignore the differences in culture and how they play into where one finds a higher number of unwilling Sex Workers?
I'm not quite sure what your point is here.New Zealand, Germany, and Nevada prove Sex Work is no more difficult to regulate than any other form of self-employment. An unwillingness to deal with sex work as it really is yet police it on moral grounds will still get passed on to the taxpayer.
Actually, as soon as I typed that I realized that weed is no more difficult to regulate than alcohol, yet alcohol is legal and weed isn't (kind of), so maybe prostitution isn't difficult to regulate at all. Unless I'm mistaken and there's some sort of process to producing weed that is difficult to regulate.As for the weed thing, alot more people smoke than are willing to admit. I would reckon the legalisation if pot in certain American states just allowed them to come out of the woodwork. (If there's one steadfast rule in America, it's do what you will but don't get caught)To the unaware observer this would seem like an increase.
I've heard this said before and I'm really not buying it. I didn't even know my relative was increasing his pot usage, all I did was try to talk to him and he was so out of it he could barely speak and when I told everyone at the party they just rolled their eyes and told me that ever since it was legalized he wouldn't stop touching the stuff. He actually lost his job over it. Now, maybe it's a crazy coincidence that he lost his job after testing positive for marijuana in the exact same month that pot was legalized where he lives, but there are coincidences and then there are coincidences. I believe it was the latter. I also have a member of my immediate family who I'd rather not name who has personally been affected by marijuana legalization and it isn't pretty. And it didn't become ugly until pot was legalized. And yes, both of them smoked pot before it was legalized, but there are just too many anecdotes for there not to be a connection. Obviously, the ban didn't stop it, but the legalization certainly increased it.0 -
Advertisement
-
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/nov/02/revealed-trafficked-migrant-workers-abused-in-irish-fishing-industry
Trafficked workers being used by some in the fishing industry
time to lock up anyone who pays for fish
So now you're admitting that men in Ireland are using women who are trafficked. Interesting about face you just did. Would you like me to further destroy your pathetically stupid position? Okay I will. Comparing food to sex is ridiculous as one cannot survive without the former and can most certainly survive without the latter. And of course, when people find out that abuses are going on in any industry, many will boycott them on moral grounds. And your comparison completely rests on the idea that sex and women, like fish, are a commodity. They are not. But I'm sure you'll try to justify it with some sort of convoluted logic nono.0 -
So now you're admitting that men in Ireland are using women who are trafficked. Interesting about face you just did. Would you like me to further destroy your pathetically stupid position? Okay I will. Comparing food to sex is ridiculous as one cannot survive without the former and can most certainly survive without the latter. And of course, when people find out that abuses are going on in any industry, many will boycott them on moral grounds. And your comparison completely rests on the idea that sex and women, like fish, are a commodity. They are not. But I'm sure you'll try to justify it with some sort of convoluted logic nono.
What makes you think sex isn't a commodity? It isn't always of course, but neither is, say, music, or a massage, but they can be.
What differentiates sex, specifically, from other things like that, in your opinion?
For instance, if you were to make a short list of characteristics, which something would have to satisfy to be considered a commodity, or alternatively a short list of characteristics that would exclude something for being considered a commodity, what would those lists be? What other services, if any, would you place in the 'non-commodity' list that would satisfy the criteria?0 -
I was chatting about this to a policeman recently here, where prostitution is legal, on the subject. Apparently trafficking isn't exactly trafficking - that is the myth of women being brought over under false pretenses, who then have their passports taken off them and are forced to have sex day and night is almost entirely a myth. The truth, it seems, is more bizarre.
Women come over from, largely from eastern Europe, and can either work from an apartment or rent time in a brothel - and if you've ever flown to or from Zurich and, say, Budapest you'll see them.
Problem arises when they are offered various advances and services, some overpriced, some not, and start spending money faster than they make it. This can happen very easily; a naive young woman who grew up in a poor country, suddenly has access to a 50k CHF advance that she blows on partying and clothes. She's happy to stay in the brothel, where all her needs are met, instead of finding an apartment, even though the rent could be utterly insane (20k p.m. or more). Before long they're deep in debt to the tune of several hundred thousand and either have to get their spending in order and pay it off or, as happens, convince some dumb Swiss guy to 'buy them out'.
Thing is, it's legal. It's also something that not all of them fall into (apparently Asian prostitutes are far less likely to go off the rails financially). So some illegal trafficking does exist, but overall is far less common than in jurisdictions where prostitution is illegal.
The thing about this is that such exploitation exists in many commercial ventures. Not so long ago people were screaming how they were given 110% mortgages by banks that they should be forgiven. Someone earlier posted about trafficked workers in the fishing industry. And perhaps further legislation should be enacted in such situations - if people are not mature enough to manage their own credit, maybe the state should step in and do so for them, so they don't end up 'exploited'.
What gets me though is that the above narrative was completely different from the one that is normally sold as 'trafficking'. This narrative that has all prostitutes chained to a cell in a brothel is the only one that has been given any airtime.
Indeed, when this new law was being discussed, no pro-sex groups were permitted to take part in the consultation process. One sex worker posted at length here on Boards on how every dirty trick in the book had been used to keep them out of it. Medical testimony was ignored. The whole thing appeared to be a fait accompli, with zero demographic oversight and managed by politicians such as Ivana Bacik and Alan Shatter, both of whom were openly in favour of the new law.
I could talk about this law likely being a disaster in the long term; as people noted it would drive the industry even further underground and make, largely, men targets for extortion and blackmail, but that's not what worries me the most.
What worries me the most is that the whole thing was completely undemocratic, dishonestly rubber stamped and bypassed any attempt at debate or getting an actual mandate. It was a law created by ideologically motivated lobby groups with no democratic input.
And it's not the first one. How many people still have no idea of the implications of the cohabitation bills 'opt out' provision, or even realized it was passed? Ireland's become a country of sheeple, it seems.0 -
Exactly the point I was making. However, that seems to be completely lost on nono (I know how much nokia69 loves nicknames). Incidentally, earlier in the thread you were chastising One eyed jack because he called men who use prostitutes scumbags. Like it or not, this is a key reason many women--I really do believe it's mostly women-- are against prostitution. You take away the illegality of something and you take away the stigmatization of it and a lot of women don't like the idea of men buying women like a commodity without social and legal consequences. The poster A regular john is a perfect example of men who use prostitutes--referring to women as "regulars", hopping between 3 or 4 women to sexually gratify himself and labeling anyone who's against it a nun or feminazi; these are the hallmarks of those kind of men. Not that banning it is going to stop men who use prostitutes from treating women like sexually disposable products, but it will, of course, reduce it. And the men in this thread are just angry that One eyed jack had the guts to say it.
Prostitution is not "buying women like a commodity" unless you believe a woman's worth is defined by a single sexual encounter. Prostitution is a service, at no point is a human being bought in the transaction, one person pays another for a service. It really is key in this debate that you understand the difference between buying a product and paying for a service. You pay people for services all of the time, it doesn't mean that you treat them like disposable products, you enter into a short term contract for a pre agreed service.0 -
snotboogie wrote: »Prostituon isn't not "buying women like a commodity" unless you believe a woman's worth is defined by a single sexual encounter. Prostituon is a service, at no point is a human being bought in the transaction, one person pays another for a service. It really is key in this debate that you understand the difference between buying a product and paying for a service. You pay people for services all of the time, it doesn't mean that you treat them like disposable products, you enter into a short term contract for a pre agreed service.
Which can be paid for with cash (contains value) which is shameful.
Or through access to value resources (housing, transport, financial support, diamond encrusted gold ring, bodyguard service, entertainment, support, advice, share of future earnings)
Which is not shameful.
Incidentally all of the above can be purchased with cash.
Direct exchange short term contract bad.
Indirect exchange long term contract good.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Comparing food to sex is ridiculous as one cannot survive without the former and can most certainly survive without the latter.
It would be ridiculous if it was a 1:1 comparison where everything has to be the same. But comparing things that have similarities in one context - does not require they be similar in every context - and I do not think the matter of "survival" is a useful jumping off point for rubbishing the comparison here. At the end of the day it is not food and sex that are being compared - but their attribute of being a product or service that is being compared - and that IS a useful comparison.And of course, when people find out that abuses are going on in any industry, many will boycott them on moral grounds.
And that is a key point many miss in the discussion about prostitution. When abuses go on in an industry most people do not boycott the industry. The boycott the provider who is engaged in the abuses. Was it Fruit of the Loom for example who were found using Child Slave Labour? I can not remember - but whoever it was the CORRECT response was to boycott the relevant clothing company. No one boycotted or made illegal CLOTHING.
And that should be the same with prostitution. The abuses going on therein should mean we boycott or - where at all possible heavily prosecute - those within that industry engaged in those abuses. But what many people anti-prostitution will do is make a leap that would not do with clothing or any other industry - which is to indict the industry ITSELF with those abuses. The difference is clear and not pretty.And your comparison completely rests on the idea that sex and women, like fish, are a commodity. They are not.
In this context technically they are. At least in the same way as they are in any other industry where people are paid to use their body in some way for a paying customer. It is not saying sex and women are commodities - it is saying for the purposes of discussion of the sex industry it parses the conversation better to see them as such.
Ask yourself the question many have already alluded to. What is the difference - SPECIFICALLY in terms of treating humans like a commodity - between a sex worker and a general masseur.
In both cases are we not purchasing time with the body of another individual - the sole purpose of whom is to manipulate OUR body in some pleasurable way using theirs - in exchange for cash? Are we treating masseurs like commmodities then? If no - then how is your point relevant at all? If yes - then what exactly is the issue with another industry doing the same thing?You take away the illegality of something and you take away the stigmatization of it and a lot of women don't like the idea of men buying women like a commodity without social and legal consequences.
Indeed - but it is none of their business really. If someone does not want to purchase a product - they should not purchase that product. If someone does not want someone ELSE to purchase it - then I would move to attempt to hear them validate that. And I see no validation for their sticking their nose into what other consenting adults do.
And I am happy to have the stigmatization taken away from it. Sex workers should not be stigmatised for doing nothing wrong.And the men in this thread are just angry that One eyed jack had the guts to say it.
I do not see much anger. One user is hardly a mob. The main issue the majority appear to have with Jacks posts are that he will make claims that there are "reality based reasons". Or that the exchange of cash somehow changes Consent into Coercion.
Then when simply asked to present those "reasons" or the substance of that transformation I mention above - he will go into a host of verbal gymnastics to ensure he never gives them and never answers the question.
And on a discussion forum like this - many people do very much deride the practice of making lofty claims and then copping out of backing them up in even the smallest way. And I believe - rightly so. These are not the martyrs for the cause you begin to paint them as here - but assertion merchants with no substance.0 -
So now you're admitting that men in Ireland are using women who are trafficked. Interesting about face you just did.
its possible, and I NEVER said its NOT possible, but where is the evidence that it happens, as I pointed out in the UK the police raided hundereds of brothels and failed to find any sex workers that were working against their will, and Ireland seems to be the same
where are all these trafficked women, answer me this how many trafficked women are there in Ireland right now and why is it so hard to find them
its a bit hard for me to prove there are no trafficked sex workers, how do I prove a negative, but based on the evidence it looks like there are very few, almost none IMOWould you like me to further destroy your pathetically stupid position? Okay I will. Comparing food to sex is ridiculous as one cannot survive without the former and can most certainly survive without the latter.
my position is very simple, if two consenting adults chose to have sex then its nobodies business but their own, and to make one of them a criminal is total madness, just because money changed hands, you people are crazy, and your ideas are based on lies and bull****And of course, when people find out that abuses are going on in any industry, many will boycott them on moral grounds. And your comparison completely rests on the idea that sex and women, like fish, are a commodity. They are not. But I'm sure you'll try to justify it with some sort of convoluted logic nono.
its you who has logic as a weak point not me
the comparision is a good one, almost everyone working in the fishing industry does it by choice, we all know this, just because a tiny number have been found to be exploited should we lock up the people who pay for fish, of course not only a fool would want that, and yet this is what the likes of you argue when it comes to sex
I will grant you this, the feminists and the nuns have done a great job convincing people that the law is all about trafficking, as if that was not illegal already0 -
i wonder how "sexual activity" is defined?
with an escort it's fairly clear but what about other services....
what happens if the massage cost but the bit at the end is free. As in it's costs Xe regardless of the tug or not? so that bit is free.
How do they account for the "paying for time and anything that happens happens...." escape clause?
questions galore....
might as well empty my savings while i still can.. :pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
You're a bit behind the times. It's certainly true that the RCC had a very unhealthy influence on Irish society from independence, but largely as a result of the abuse scandals that emerged in the late nineties, early naughties, this influence has been pretty much decimated.Fred Swanson wrote: »This post has been deleted.
If you want to look at what direction social policy in Ireland is going, it's certainly not in the direction that the RCC would like to see, but more in the direction that the Bacik's of Ireland would prefer. To suggest that we're still under the clerical yoke is a bit silly at this stage.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement