So is prostitution to be outlawed in Ireland or what?

LuckyLloyd

When you look at the issue in terms of logic and reason, one side of the debate is pummelling the other. If it was a fight it would have been called off 80 posts in. The problem of course is that the argument with reason on its side cannot be expressed publicly by a politician, organisation or even by a private individual bar those openly working as independent escorts. And thus we get these abomination of a law that will do nothing to fundamentally quell the activity or its negative consequences.

It will also never be repealed in our lifetimes most likely.

nokia69

NI24 wrote: »

Exactly the point I was making. However, that seems to be completely lost on nono (I know how much nokia69 loves nicknames).

I call One Eyed Jack, jackie, because she likes to hide the fact that she is female, just like she tries to claim she is not a feminist or even a radical feminist

NI24 wrote: »

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 stigmatisation

Its NOT illegal to be a sex worker so the stigmatisation come from somewhere else, I suspect there is another reason women like you don't like sex workers

NI24 wrote: »

a lot of women don't like the idea of men buying women like a commodity without social and legal consequences.

no one is buying women, they are paying for a service, they don't own the woman, do you own the mechanic who fixed your car, its your failure to understand this point that leads you astray

eviltwin

nokia69 wrote: »

I call One Eyed Jack, jackie, because she likes to hide the fact that she is female, just like she tries to claim she is not a feminist or even a radical feminist



Its NOT illegal to be a sex worker so the stigmatisation come from somewhere else, I suspect there is another reason women like you don't like sex workers




no one is buying women, they are paying for a service, they don't own the woman, do you own the mechanic who fixed your car, its your failure to understand this point that leads you astray

Jacks a man, not a woman.

eviltwin

nokia69 wrote: »

no one is buying women, they are paying for a service, they don't own the woman, do you own the mechanic who fixed your car, its your failure to understand this point that leads you astray

This. It's a service and the prostitute has the right to say no. They don't have to take the money. Ironically it's keeping it underground that takes prostitutes rights away, they may not be able to refuse a client if they are working for a pimp.

nokia69

eviltwin wrote: »

Jacks a man, not a woman.

no chance, read back the last few pages its very clear jack is female, she likes to pretend to be male because she thinks it gives her radical feminist ideas some kind of weight

hey everybody look I'm a man and I have the very same ideas as radical feminists, LOL as if

I spotted this months ago

nokia69

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

When you look at the issue in terms of logic and reason, one side of the debate is pummelling the other. If it was a fight it would have been called off 80 posts in. The problem of course is that the side with reason on its side cannot be expressed publicly by a politician, organisation or even by a private individual bar those openly working as independent escorts. And thus we get these abomination of a law that will do nothing to fundamentally quell the activity or its negative consequences.

It will also never be repealed in our lifetimes most likely.

yeah, they really have done a great job

AFAIK only 3 TDs are against the law, but I would bet good money a majority know its all bull****, spineless the lot of them

I bet Norris is against the law because he can see similarities with the anti homosexual laws we had a few years ago, but you could argue that this law is worse because it only goes after person having sex not the other

Turfcutter

This law looks like pure window dressing. It would take a lot of work to organise the stings and make any convictions stick. With burglaries and gangs rampant, does the public really want Gardai squads staking out apartments, using surveillance techniques, cross checking phone records etc to trap middle aged bachelors so they can pin a €100 fine on them?

I'd say the Gardai won't bother, bar when they get the order from on high to create headlines and make it look like the law is working.

The Ruhama/Catholic Church position is easy to fathom on this. To them this is essentially a moral issue of fallen women, the latter day Mary Magdelenes and pervy men commiting sin.

The feminist backing of this law is more difficult to square. When it comes to abortion, their line is that the woman can do what she likes with her body. Yet when it comes to using her body to give men sexual favours...

FleekAF

NI24 wrote: »

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.

Excuse me? Men who aren't punters use Women as sexually disposable objects All the damn time!
Is it so incredulous that some women realise this and rather than face that on a regular basis with no payback decide to become prostitutes? There's being used and then there's being used but getting something out of it financially. Just ask any retail worker

LeTickler

Briffaults law.

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

I was temporarily banned earlier, by a female moderator no doubt, for suggestions that prostitution and long term relationships differed only by the form of currency being used* and duration of the contract.

cash value (bad and dirty) vs less directly transferable value i.e. physical protection, accommodation, transport, advice, support, various gifts and entertainments, share of future earnings (good and laudable).

Casual multiple transactions (male strategy): being bad and shameful.

Single partner committed contracts (female strategy): being good and righteous.

... no fault divorces, and alimony = also good and right.

paleoperson

Turfcutter wrote: »

This law looks like pure window dressing. It would take a lot of work to organise the stings and make any convictions stick. With burglaries and gangs rampant, does the public really want Gardai squads staking out apartments, using surveillance techniques, cross checking phone records etc to trap middle aged bachelors so they can pin a €100 fine on them?

Ever watch Cops? Occasionally when they want some easy work to do they sent a couple of female cops dressed as prostitutes and it's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's easier than organizing a game of monopoly. Cross checking phone records eh? The guy is right there in front of them, they have him red-handed. The idea of getting off on a technicality and wiggling out of charges is all well and good except in the majority of cases when you're not the guy getting off on a technicality.

The technical aspects are not why they don't do it.

nokia69

LeTickler wrote: »

I was temporarily banned earlier, by a female moderator no doubt

a while ago I got a ban for a week from a I assume a female mod, she said my post contained misogyny, so I sent her a PM asked her to point out the misogyny in my post, her reply was that she was busy and she would reply again later

well she never got back to me, because there was of course no misogyny in my post, she just banned me because she disagreed with the post

pathetic

OneOfThem

nokia69 wrote: »

a while ago I got a ban for a week from a I assume a female mod, she said my post contained misogyny, so I sent her a PM asked her to point out the misogyny in my post, her reply was that she was busy and she would reply again later

well she never got back to me, because there was of course no misogyny in my post, she just banned me because she disagreed with the post

pathetic

See it's the "I assume a female mod" thing that let's you down there. In case you didn't notice.

nokia69

OneOfThem wrote: »

See it's the "I assume a female mod" thing that let's you down there. In case you didn't notice.

I come to that conclusion based on posts in other threads not from the ban itself

however, whether the mod is male or female is irrelevant to me, banning someone just because you disagree with a post, and then claiming misogyny and failing to prove it is pathetic

welcome to boards, try not to get a ban

Canterelle

Nobody wants to rent their body to a stranger, they do so purely for money. To say that sex is consensual in that context is disingenuous. Sure, there is agreement (based on money changing hands). But I always thought consensual sex was where both parties wanted it.

nokia69

Canterelle wrote: »

Nobody wants to rent their body to a stranger, they do so purely for money. To say that sex is consensual in that context is disingenuous. Sure, there is agreement (based on money changing hands). But I always thought consensual sex was where both parties wanted it.

thats a very strange argument

just because they agree to have sex for different reasons does not mean it can't be consensual

Peter Anthony

Canterelle wrote: »

Nobody wants to rent their body to a stranger, they do so purely for money. To say that sex is consensual in that context is disingenuous. Sure, there is agreement (based on money changing hands). But I always thought consensual sex was where both parties wanted it.

What nonsense is this? You claim to speak for all escorts do you?

The fact its consensual is disingenuous? What on earth, they can refuse who they want. I think youve spent too much time on twitter and in sociology classes

Canterelle

nokia69 wrote: »

thats a very strange argument

just because they agree to have sex for different reasons does not mean it can't be consensual

But is consent not the freedom to agree to something without any limiting considerations?

Azalea

They're still consenting because of the end transaction. Just because it's a means to an end doesn't mean it's non consensual - it's still a choice.

nokia69

Canterelle wrote: »

But is consent not the freedom to agree to something without any limiting considerations?

ah come on Canterelle

most people have worked at jobs they don't really like just for the money, just because you get paid for something does not mean you can't consent

honestly this is childish stuff

Canterelle

Azalea wrote: »

They're still consenting because of the end transaction. Just because it's a means to an end doesn't mean it's non consensual - it's still a choice.

Yes, I know. But I still think it's a point that has to be made, ie this whole idea that it's wanted sexual activity on both sides. It's not that simple.

Canterelle

nokia69 wrote: »

ah come on Canterelle

most people have worked at jobs they don't really like just for the money, just because you get paid for something does not mean you can't consent

honestly this is childish stuff

I guess I think of sex as different to (other?) work! Thankfully.

nokia69

Canterelle wrote: »

I guess I think of sex as different to (other?) work! Thankfully.

well thats fair enough, and I can see why you think its not a "normal" job

but I just can't agree that just because money is involved that normal idea or definition of consent is changed, people will agree to do things for all kinds of reasons

George Bernard Shaw comes to mind, in many ways we're all just haggling over the price

Canterelle

nokia69 wrote: »

well thats fair enough, and I can see why you think its not a "normal" job

but I just can't agree that just because money is involved that normal idea or definition of consent is changed, people will agree to do things for all kinds of reasons

Ok, well say you are having sex with a paid sex worker or else having sex with a person you love? The consent is different, at the very least?

nokia69

Canterelle wrote: »

Ok, well say you are having sex with a paid sex worker or else having sex with a person you love? The consent is different, at the very least?

no, consent is consent, nothing more, nothing less

true the reasons for consent are very different, but in the end, consent is consent

Canterelle

nokia69 wrote: »

no, consent is consent, nothing more, nothing less

true the reasons for consent are very different, but in the end, consent is consent

Well what if the sex worker was a drug addict? Or trafficked/pimped? But they still agree to sex.

LeTickler

Canterelle wrote: »

Yes, I know. But I still think it's a point that has to be made, ie this whole idea that it's wanted sexual activity on both sides. It's not that simple.

Do you know how many men WANT to go to the theatre production of grease, or hear about migranes, star signs or the treachery of female co-workers.

Canterelle

LeTickler wrote: »

Do you know how many men WANT to go to the theatre production of grease, or hear about migranes, star signs or the treachery of female co-workers.

?? Yeh. Same thing.

nokia69

Canterelle wrote: »

Well what if the sex worker was a drug addict? Or trafficked/pimped? But they still agree to sex.

a drug addict can still make a choice, consent is consent

Trafficked is very different and thats NOT what the new law is about

trafficking is already illegal as it should be, it looks like they found some trafficked workers in the fishing industry, I hope you don't think paying for fish should be illegal

nokia69

Canterelle wrote: »

?? Yeh. Same thing.

he's making the point that men will sometimes do something that they dislike just to get the leg over

but they still consented to doing these things, they wanted one thing and did something else to get it

qph

Yurt! wrote: »

You're playing word games now. Job, occupation, whatever.


Lots of professions and occupations aren't the ideal. Fishing in the Bering sea is dangerous, coal mining is dangerous, farmers get killed every year bringing food to your table. Waste work is stigmatized (not as bad as sex work) and terribly paid. Do we ban these activities, seek to drive them underground, or do we move to make them safe and improve conditions?

The only difference between the above occupations and sex work in the public consciousness is the pious attitude of religious groups seeking to save the 'morally fallen woman', and the arrogant and frequently toxic line feminists take with their assumptions of 'patriarchy' and universal female victim hood despite evidence to the contrary (Never mind when they plug their ears and refuse to listen to the women they purport to 'protect').

I to used to try and view sex work in these terms and apply the norms and rules of other dangerous jobs that are legal and not judged through the prism of morally like the also legal sex work or escorting which is looked at by society though a prism.

The fact is though I have learned that you cannot compare like for like, you cannot say that escorting is same as any other job that carries risk for very simple reasons. While working as an independent is fully legal, it is the only job that is legal yet anyone who does choose to work as an independent escort is forced by law to be placed at more risk then they need to.

Take your examples of fishing and farming... If two fishermen, each in his own boat and doing his own thing, decided to team up during a storm for safety so that one could help the other if one got into difficulty, can you imagine them being arrested for that?


This is exactly what a fully Independent escort, breaking no Irish law, is at risk of, if by some chance another independent, even if both are unaware of each others existence happen to under the same roof, be that roof a large complex of apartments with dozens or hundreds of people in it. If two escorts are under one roof, then legally the law says that that is running a brothel.

This is crazy, its as crazy as if those two fishermen were arrested for simply being in same patch of sea at the same time.

Imagine if a fishermen was forced to work alone just as escorts are now (if they are to remain within confines of Irish law)

Imagine the uproar nationwide is a fisherman was drowned and died alone as he was forced not to stick close or work with another fisherman for safety?

Yet this same crazy legal situation is exactly what escorts who wish to not break the law are forced to do, they are at risk of being in breech of the law just by being in same large complex, never mind in same apartment.

So you cannot compare sex work with any other legal and risky job, no other job contains this

No fireman/woman is forced to fight a fire on their own.
No Nurse is forced to treat a drunk in A and E on her/his own.
No Guard is forced to walk his beat on his own
No Soldier is told to go over the top on his own.
No coal miner is told to go underground alone.
No farmer is told to reap his harvest alone.
No fisherman is told to man his trawler alone.

Yet this is exactly what sex workers who are just as legally entitled to work as such as all the above are forced to do.

What do all the above have in common? Teamwork in a risky job is key to survival yet that same key is not allowed to be turned by escorts.

I am neither client nor escort, just someone who has educated myself about this industry in detail over several years and the single best thing any government could do is remove this crazy law, no pimp is bothered in the least by this two escort law but it places the small handful of real indies at great risk.

For anyone who is not client or escort you could do worse them watch this RTE current affairs program, while is made a few years ago, its findings are as correct now as they were then...

www. rte.ie/news/player/prime-time-web/2012/0207/

^ (remove space after dot and copy and paste into address baras I cannot post full links)

For the hurler on the ditch reading this, you have no idea just what is going on, as I did not but through long self education I know the above program is 100% correct.

Imo this new law is needed to wake up or force the client base to wake up and start looking for the real independents. Nothing else will work and things are out of control in just how bad things are and how very large pimp operations are in overall control of the bulk of any escort profile you care to click on on certain sites.

The real independents should be allowed to work with one other as its a law that is of no use in stopping pimps but places independent escorts into a needlessly dangerous situation.