Gardai find naked man whipped on crucifix in Dublin club, naked audience watch

jam_mac_jam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Exactly the point I made in my first point above. People FEEL it is different, so they act like it actually is different. But aside from Da Feelz, what actual differences can we lay out. I am sure someone held against their will and forced into slave labour is dreaming of freedom rather than simply saying "Ah sure, at least its not sex work".

The fact remains that in BOTH cases they are being held against their will and forced to do work as slaves. And in BOTH cases I would do everything in my power to free them. As I hope we all would.

What I would not, and will not ever, do is pretend that in one cases it says nothing about the industry, but in the other case it means the industry itself is by definition exploitation and slavery. If exploitation and slavery happens within any industry then THAT is bad. And it is enough that that is bad. We do not need to conflate it with the industry itself.



Maybe you can read. Maybe you can also shift goal posts. Because in the first post you referred to the part of my post about sex work and nail bars. In THIS post you are quoting and referring to an entirely different part of my post which was making an entirely different point to the other part of my post.



Why should I have to? I believe in, and live in a society with a social justice system partially predicated on, the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty". It is not for me to provide the statistics on slavery and rape here. It is for the people indicting the industry of sex work.

However I am not sure why any particular % is relevant here? 20 seems random and arbitrary. Why not 10? Why not 70? My point would remain the same either way. If slavery happens in ANY industry.... that slavery is a bad thing. That does not automatically mean the industry itself is a bad thing.

Slavery, rape, and abuse happens in the world of sex work. I know this. You know this. It's a terrible thing. And we should do anything in our power to reduce that, preferably to zero. But that simply does NOT mean that sex work in and of itself is a problem or the problem.

I trust you think Freelance Massage is ok? If you don't then we need to have a different conversation. But assuming you do think it is ok..... would it suddenly not be ok tomorrow if the market was flooded with slave workers tomorrow? Or would the slavery itself not be the problem, rather than massage????



As if "only natural" means it is a good thing, or the right thing, to do. However you have yet to substantiate the idea that the majority of the people involved fit that description, have you?

Again though, even if that was true it STILL does not indict the industry. Just the practices within it. Take another example. The meat industry. Some people think eating meat is a bad thing. That is one conversation. Other people think that eating meat is ok but how we treat our animals at this time in inhumane. THEY can see the same difference I am trying to explain to you. That the industry itself (the production and consumption of meat) is separate from the practices within that industry. And if we could clear up the malpractice and inhumanity of the current system..... then that is enough.

I would say the same of sex work. There is NOTHING wrong with sex work that I can see. If there are inhumane and awful practices within that industry at this time however, then we very much should try to clean that up.

The issue for ME is that most people can see everything I just said clearly and honestly and openly. UNTIL it suddenly comes to an industry THEY do not like. And whether they are against sex work, or eating of meat, or whatever.... they will suddenly based on their bias alone happily conflate the two things they would separate in any other conversation.

da feelz?

People find rape much more traumatic but i suppose thats just silly feelings and emotions.

Unfortunately humans are not robots. If thats da feelz so be it.

Eric Cartman

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Sex Workers in Ireland are more abused by the Government than anyone else. Sex Workers were the ones out protesting the change of laws in Ireland, they were the ones who were unrecognized, and again during this pandemic, they were abandoned and entitled to nothing. Every Tom Dick and Harry who worked an hour a week suddenly had 350 a week no questioned asked, but the Sex Workers were again abused and mistreated by the Government '' lets pretend they don't exist, give them nothing, let them rot'' its' not cool, they should have the same rights.

'Sex Workers' usually don't pay tax , many also defraud the welfare system while being paid in cash.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nah it’s not propriety or anything else, it’s simply acknowledging that prostitution is a social ill which is inherently exploitative.

I am not sure merely asserting it to be so is the same thing as "recognising" that it is so. Your argument is circular therefore when you write something like this....

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s why there’s a stigma against it, because the people who indulge in it are perpetuating that same exploitation.

.... you are using the thing you assert, to describe the thing they are doing, and then claiming that supports the the thing you asserted. Fully circular.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Even if it were regulated in Ireland there would still be “the tip of the iceberg” effect where less than 1% of it would be a legitimate and visible business, and the 99% of it would still be conducted illegally because it’s simply more profitable than going legit.

More assertion based on nothing from you here. To make an accurate, rather than fantasy, determination on the above one would have to know by what means it was regulated, with what regulations precisely, and how it would be enforced and supported.

Merely asserting that regulation automatically leads to one outcome, is fantasy work without any actual details.

We see it with cannabis legalisation for example. It has been legalised in different ways in different states/countries. But the devil is in the details and some areas very much DID regulate it in a way that pretty much guaranteed that black market practices would not be just more attractive.... but monumentally more attractive.... the legitimate trade. To the point that in one US State people who grow it legally locally, get much more profit by shipping their produce to states where it is illegal.

So no, until we see the actual details of regulation... your assertions as to outcomes is just fantasy.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And it’s true that everyone is aware of exploitation in other industries, but that exploitation too is regarded by most people as immoral.

EXACTLY! That is 100% my point exactly. The people see the exploitation as immoral. As well we should.

But magically when it comes to an industry you personally do not like.... the exploitation and the industry itself become conflated. And THATS the issue I pointed out.

nozzferrahhtoo

KiKi III wrote: »

You can’t get AIDS from giving someone a massage (or syphillis, or herpes etc)

You can’t get pregnant from giving someone a massage.

Violence and rape against masseurs is not a common problem.

Pretending they are the same thing is disingenuous in the extreme.

Acting like I am pretending they are the same thing in EVERY way in EVERY context would be disingenuous in the extreme. You are making a locus of comparison that was not present in the point I was making.

The above is a different conversation entirely. The point I was making when comparing them was that calling one slavery / exploitation and not the other.... is a leap. I see no reason to do so. Assuming the people in both enter that freelance work willingly.

That there are different risks within one industry than the other is a different conversation. One I am happy to have, but it is still a different conversation. But you likely would not get much argument from me within that conversation. We would be mostly in agreement.

It should be entirely up to a person FREELY entering ANY industry if they wish to do so while cognisant of the risks. Be it sex work, or joining the army, or becoming a cop in the US in their current climate, or anything else.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Scale does come in to it. Being raped numerous times is not the same as doing nails.

Pretending they are the same is completely disingenuous. Most people do feel differently about sex then other forms of work.

The previous poster was arguing in favour of shutting down an entire industry if human trafficking is involved. Why - from the law abiding workers point of view - should the nature of the industry matter?

LawBoy2018

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The previous poster was arguing in favour of shutting down an entire industry if human trafficking is involved.

*If human trafficking dominates the industry, as it does.

nozzferrahhtoo

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

da feelz?

People find rape much more traumatic but i suppose thats just silly feelings and emotions.

Do you? That is a pretty awful position to hold. I am glad it is not one I hold. Nor have I ever held.

No what is silly for me is not the feelings, but the use people are putting them to in conversations like this. If the only reason freelance massage and freelance sex work is being treated differently is because you FEEL one is different to the other.... then that is indeed silly.

That is NOT to claim, as I just explained to the last user, that there is no difference between the two. I never claimed that. There is just no difference relevant to the point I am making.

There are differences between the two. And my position is that if someone makes such a career choice cognisant of those differences.... then that is A-OK with me.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Unfortunately humans are not robots. If thats da feelz so be it.

And I am glad of that. Our emotions are wonderful things and I would not be without them. There are times however when one does well to take a step back and see if one's emotions tracks meaningfully with reality. Emotions can and should guide our judgements, not dictate them.

KiKi III

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Acting like I am pretending they are the same thing in EVERY way in EVERY context would be disingenuous in the extreme. You are making a locus of comparison that was not present in the point I was making.

The above is a different conversation entirely. The point I was making when comparing them was that calling one slavery / exploitation and not the other.... is a leap. I see no reason to do so. Assuming the people in both enter that freelance work willingly.

That there are different risks within one industry than the other is a different conversation. One I am happy to have, but it is still a different conversation. But you likely would not get much argument from me within that conversation. We would be mostly in agreement.

It should be entirely up to a person FREELY entering ANY industry if they wish to do so while cognisant of the risks. Be it sex work, or joining the army, or becoming a cop in the US in their current climate, or anything else.

Your words were that they are doing “exactly the same thing”. Feel free to reread your previous post.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But magically when it comes to an industry you personally do not like.... the exploitation and the industry itself become conflated. And THATS the issue I pointed out.

What do you mean “an industry that I personally do not like”? Who’s conflating things now?

I don’t care one way or the other about the sex industry and all it entails. I do care about exploitation within the industry, same as I care about exploitation in any industry.

It just so happens that this thread veered into prostitution as distinct from a lad having his arse slapped while an audience look on. A complaint was made to Gardaí by the landlord against the tenant that they were running a brothel at his premises. Gardaí investigated, raided the place, and the newspapers had something of a field day with the story given the salacious details.

It’s still up to the Gardaí to investigate one way or the other whether the tenant actually was running a brothel on the premises, and if it’s the case that she was, she could face prosecution. The prostitutes who might have been working there won’t be prosecuted for prostitution because Irish law doesn’t criminalise the sellers, only the buyers.

nozzferrahhtoo

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

*If human trafficking dominates the industry, as it does.

IF is a big if here. You have yet to show that this is in fact the reality. Perhaps that evidence is forthcoming?

However even then, I am not convinced. Regardless of whether it is 5% or 10% or 75% or 95% of the industry our position should be how can we BEST address that % and reduce it, preferably to zero.

IF the best way to achieve that is to make the entire thing illegal and prosecute everyone within it, then great! Let's do that! But let us establish that as fact, rather than assumption, before we do, shall we?

How much of the industry producing our meat is doing so ethically? 5%? 50%? 95%? I do not know. Perhaps immoral and unethical practices dominate the industry there too? If so, let's clean it the hell up! Let's not.... just because we might happen to be a vegetarian, simply indict the industry and throw our hands up at it.

jam_mac_jam

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The previous poster was arguing in favour of shutting down an entire industry if human trafficking is involved. Why - from the law abiding workers point of view - should the nature of the industry matter?

Because the amount of people that are trafficked for sex is very high compared to other industries. There is a high proportion of organised crime involved.

The nature of the industry matters because it is much more traumatic for people to be raped on a daily basis then be forced to work in other industries.
I suspect that is due to demand and the fact that there are a lower proportion of people want to so this work.

nozzferrahhtoo

KiKi III wrote: »

Your words were that they are doing “exactly the same thing”. Feel free to reread your previous post.

Yes they are DOING exactly the same thing. That does not claim that the risks involved are the same. You are attributing things to my claim that I am not saying.

AGAIN a free lance masseur, and a free lance sex work, are using parts of their body to manipulate parts of yours. That is a fact. That is EXACTLY the same thing.

The risks involved in their work is irrelevant to the claim they are slaves being exploited however. That is an entirely different conversation to the point I am making here. Feel free to reread my previous post. Understand it this time

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What do you mean “an industry that I personally do not like”? Who’s conflating things now?

I don’t care one way or the other about the sex industry and all it entails. I do care about exploitation within the industry, same as I care about exploitation in any industry.

You. Frankly.

Why?

Because the second paragraph above is one I would write myself. We could not be more in agreement there I suspect.

However that is NOT what you said before. Before you conflated sex work with that exploitation.

What you said before was not that your issue was with exploitation within sex work. Your previous claim was that sex work itself IS exploitation.

THAT is the conflation to which I refer. The former we agree 100% on. The latter is abject nonsense you simply made up and asserted as fact.

KiKi III

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes they are DOING exactly the same thing. That does not claim that the risks involved are the same. You are attributing things to my claim that I am not saying.

AGAIN a free lance masseur, and a free lance sex work, are using parts of their body to manipulate parts of yours. That is a fact. That is EXACTLY the same thing.

The risks involved in their work is irrelevant to the claim they are slaves being exploited however. That is an entirely different conversation to the point I am making here. Feel free to reread my previous post. Understand it this time

Based on that logic shaking hands and giving someone a handjob are the same thing. You’re just gripping a part of their body and moving your hand up and down. It’s the EXACT same thing.

Nonsense.

nozzferrahhtoo

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Because the amount of people that are trafficked for sex is very high compared to other industries. There is a high proportion of organised crime involved.

And we can and should address that. However one of the first questions to ask is whether that situation is partially, or even wholly, CAUSED by the legal or social climate around that industry. We saw the same thing with prohibition of alcohol for example.... it created a market for bad and illegal product. Now alcohol is legal most people go for the legal version I suspect. Is there still crime and bad product? Hell yea. But we do not indict the alcohol industry for that fact, do we?

KiKi III wrote: »

Based on that logic shaking hands and giving someone a handjob are the same thing.

They are the "same thing" only in the context of the point I am making. They are different things in the context of a multitude of other points.

The problem here is you are dismissing the context within which I am making the comparison and acting like my comparison is being made free of context.

If I compared the color of a mountain and a gun... then I would be comparing only their color. I would not be saying mountains are like guns. Do I actually have to explain this?

AGAIN... solely in the context that two people are providing a freelance service using their body on yours..... why is one "slavery" and the other is not? Or to use YOUR comparison above, if I paid one woman to shake my hand for me, and I paid another woman to shake my knob for me.... why is one ok and the other is "slavery and exploitation"?

Now if I trafficked two people and made them slaves and FORCED Them to accept money to do those two things with my hand and my knob.... that is a problem.

LawBoy2018

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

IF is a big if here. You have yet to show that this is in fact the reality. Perhaps that evidence is forthcoming?

However even then, I am not convinced. Regardless of whether it is 5% or 10% or 75% or 95% of the industry our position should be how can we BEST address that % and reduce it, preferably to zero.

IF the best way to achieve that is to make the entire thing illegal and prosecute everyone within it, then great! Let's do that! But let us establish that as fact, rather than assumption, before we do, shall we?

How much of the industry producing our meat is doing so ethically? 5%? 50%? 95%? I do not know. Perhaps immoral and unethical practices dominate the industry there too? If so, let's clean it the hell up! Let's not.... just because we might happen to be a vegetarian, simply indict the industry and throw our hands up at it.

The onus is on the industry itself to provide evidence which shows, definitively, that it's not dominated by such reprehensible behaviour. Until then, the industry as a whole will be condemned by the public, simple as.

I find your comparison of trafficked sex workers to meat very telling. These are vulnerable people we're talking about here, not lamb chops. If reducing the likelihood of such atrocities means condemning the 'industry' as a whole, then so be it. It's better to completely eradicate the risk of such behaviour than to facilitate it for the few.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

*If human trafficking dominates the industry, as it does.

And yo'dr still be in favour of it with other industries as opposed to prostitution if that were the case? Rather than regulation?

The problem is, having the trade banned makes it easier to facilitate the slave trade, as long as the market exists. The only way you eliminate the trade is to eliminate the demand. And that's never going to happen; hence regulation'.

KiKi III

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And we can and should address that. However one of the first questions to ask is whether that situation is partially, or even wholly, CAUSED by the legal or social climate around that industry. We saw the same thing with prohibition of alcohol for example.... it created a market for bad and illegal product. Now alcohol is legal most people go for the legal version I suspect. Is there still crime and bad product? Hell yea. But we do not indict the alcohol industry for that fact, do we?



They are the "same thing" only in the context of the point I am making. They are different things in the context of a multitude of other points.

The problem here is you are dismissing the context within which I am making the comparison and acting like my comparison is being made free of context.

If I compared the color of a mountain and a gun... then I would be comparing only their color. I would not be saying mountains are like guns. Do I actually have to explain this?

AGAIN... solely in the context that two people are providing a freelance service using their body on yours..... why is one "slavery" and the other is not? Or to use YOUR comparison above, if I paid one woman to shake my hand for me, and I paid another woman to shake my knob for me.... why is one ok and the other is "slavery and exploitation"?

Now if I trafficked two people and made them slaves and FORCED Them to accept money to do those two things with my hand and my knob.... that is a problem.

If you can’t figure out why there’s a difference between a professional massage and sex or a handshake and a handjob, nothing I can say will make a difference.

nozzferrahhtoo

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

The onus is on the industry itself to provide evidence which shows, definitively, that it's not dominated by such reprehensible behaviour.

Is it? Why? Again: Innocent until proven guilty. Let us prove their guilt before they are demanded to erect a defence against the prosecution. Why does one industry have to prove their innocence when others do not? Because you personally demand it? No thanks.

If you want to assume guilt and demand someone prove their innocence then that is a worldview I fear we simply do not share.

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Until then, the industry as a whole will be condemned by the public, simple as.

Perhaps. But the fact... and I think you are right it is a fact.... they do this does not negate MY position that is bias driven nonsense THAT they do it. If I am discussing how it is wrong to do that... and you are discussing THAT they are doing this.... then I fear we are merely having two different conversations past each other.

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

I find your comparison of trafficked sex workers to meat very telling. These are vulnerable people we're talking about here, not lamb chops.

It is not as telling as you think. I am making MANY comparisons of which that is only one. You singling one out over the others is more telling than anything therefore.

However I will not dodge your point. Animals are vulnerable too. In many ways MORE so than people given they can not communicate with us. So my comparison holds here. If animals or people are being treated unethically within an industry then we the public, and our government and laws, should hold them accountable. And then we the people and the government and laws should step up to assist that industry to clean up their act.

What we should NOT do is conflate the bad practices within either or any industry WITH the industry arbitrarily. Either we should take that approach with ALL industries or none or justify our exceptions. It should not be arbitrary based on Da Feelz.

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

If reducing the likelihood of such atrocities means condemning the 'industry' as a whole, then so be it. It's better to completely eradicate the risk of such behaviour than to facilitate it for the few.

Agreed! But once again there is a huge "IF" floating there that has not even remotely been established as fact. And it is not something I am willing to merely assume for arbitrary reasons like some would.

IF it were established this was the best approach then you would get zero argument from me. Be it sex work, or legalising cannabis, or banning abortion or any other subject.

nozzferrahhtoo

KiKi III wrote: »

If you can’t figure out why there’s a difference between a professional massage and sex or a handshake and a handjob, nothing I can say will make a difference.

If you can't figure out that I not only know there are differences, and have made that explicit more than once already, but that the differences are not at all relevant to the point I am making, nothing I can say will make a difference.

AGAIN the point of the comparison is not to claim the two are the same. The point of the comparison is to ask why if two people VOLUNTARILY enter into work where they manipulate parts of your body with their hand......... then why is one slavery and the other is just a career move?

KiKi III

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you can't figure out that I not only know there are differences, and have made that explicit more than once already, but that the differences are not at all relevant to the point I am making, nothing I can say will make a difference.

AGAIN the point of the comparison is not to claim the two are the same. The point of the comparison is to ask why if two people VOLUNTARILY enter into work where they manipulate parts of your body with their hand......... then why is one slavery and the other is just a career move?

So it’s exactly the same except for all the ways that it’s completely different?

whisky_galore

Think it is better to be legalised and somewhat controlled than as is now, illegal, underground and no-one knows wtf is going on. Far more scope for criminal activity in the latter. If you think making prostitution illegal stops trafficking...lol.

Abortion was legalised here, that did not mean women all ran out in their droves to procure one.

nozzferrahhtoo

KiKi III wrote: »

So it’s exactly the same except for all the ways that it’s completely different?

I explained this in the second section of post #137.

Comparisons made with context should not be stripped of that context before evaluation. To do so is massively disingenuous.

KiKi III

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I explained this in the second section of post #137.

Comparisons made with context should not be stripped of that context before evaluation. To do so is massively disingenuous.

You’re the one trying to remove the context. You want to talk about prostitution without talking about the medical risks, trafficking, violence and exploitation even though all are endemic in the industry.

Your comparison doesn’t make sense.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You. Frankly.

Why?

Because the second paragraph above is one I would write myself. We could not be more in agreement there I suspect.

However that is NOT what you said before. Before you conflated sex work with that exploitation.

What you said before was not that your issue was with exploitation within sex work. Your previous claim was that sex work itself IS exploitation.

THAT is the conflation to which I refer. The former we agree 100% on. The latter is abject nonsense you simply made up and asserted as fact.

No I didn’t conflate “sex work” with exploitation. I said that prostitution is inherently exploitative.

If you’re going to assert I said anything and then try and argue against something I never said, you’re not giving me any more reason to entertain your nonsense.

One eyed Jack

whisky_galore wrote: »

Think it is better to be legalised and somewhat controlled than as is now, illegal, underground and no-one knows wtf is going on. Far more scope for criminal activity in the latter. If you think making prostitution illegal stops trafficking...lol.

Abortion was legalised here, that did not mean women all ran out in their droves to procure one.

Plenty of people know exactly what’s going on, that’s why only a minority of people are in favour of it’s decriminalisation. Decriminalisation wouldn’t suddenly make all the people who are currently involved in it decide that they want to go legit, simply because legitimisation and regulation mean accountability, and criminals don’t do accountability.

In essence all you’d be doing is encouraging exploitation - inspections every so often to ensure everything is above board, while the vast majority of exploitation would still go unhindered and encouraged by misguided notions that regulation would make the industry any safer. It hasn’t, it’s only increased exploitation of people is all.

Day Lewin

Very surprised that sex work is being described as "rape on a daily basis"
Rape, by definition, is non-consensual.

Of course pros do get raped, sometimes: it is a uniquely vulnerable trade: and their assailant can be prosecuted, too, - and rightly so.

But most of the work is NOT rape: it is supplying a service for which there is an endless demand.
Under the radar, furtive, shameful - wanting sex. Tragic, isn't it?
Supplying that service for money is not rape. It's business.
The women (or men) who do that work should enjoy as much protection as any other worker.
Being ostracised,illegal and hidden makes their position ten times more dangerous than it needs to be - thats all.

nozzferrahhtoo

KiKi III wrote: »

You’re the one trying to remove the context. You want to talk about prostitution without talking about the medical risks, trafficking, violence and exploitation even though all are endemic in the industry.

Your comparison doesn’t make sense.

Quite the contrary. I want to talk about the risks, the trafficking, the abuse, the slavery and all of that. I want our entire society to be talking about it and addressing it.

The point of my comparison, and the reason it makes sense, is that I am pointing out that we can do that process WITHOUT pretending to indict the industry in and of itself with those issues.

Just like we do with any other industry. We can address the inhumane treatment of animals in our meat industry without pretending eating or producing meat is bad. We can address child slave labour in the clothing production industry without pretending clothes or clothes production are bad.

And so on.

One eyed Jack

Day Lewin wrote: »

Very surprised that sex work is being described as "rape on a daily basis"
Rape, by definition, is non-consensual.

Of course pros do get raped, sometimes: it is a uniquely vulnerable trade: and their assailant can be prosecuted, too, - and rightly so.

But most of the work is NOT rape: it is supplying a service for which there is an endless demand.
Under the radar, furtive, shameful - wanting sex. Tragic, isn't it?
Supplying that service for money is not rape. It's business.
The women (or men) who do that work should enjoy as much protection as any other worker.
Being ostracised,illegal and hidden makes their position ten times more dangerous than it needs to be - thats all.

I can understand why it’s being described as rape, because consent can only be considered valid when there is no coercion. Prostitution immediately falls at the first hurdle because prostitution by definition involves offering someone money to have sex with that person.

There’s nothing inherently shameful about wanting sex, it’s the using other people to get it, is where the problem arises. Anyone who does that should be ashamed of themselves IMO. Of course anyone who thinks that’s acceptable behaviour or an acceptable attitude to have towards anyone, should be ostracised.

If they weren’t demanding it, then there would be nobody put at risk, and so your issue is really with the people who demand sex from others and think it’s acceptable because they’re paying for it. That’s why it’s dangerous, because the people who demand sex tend to feel hard done by and take it out on a prostitute or prostitutes when they aren’t getting what they feel they’ve paid for.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I didn’t conflate “sex work” with exploitation. I said that prostitution is inherently exploitative.

What you said exactly word for word was "More and more, prostitution is being seen for what it is - modern slavery, exploitation"

That is the conflation of which I speak. If you want to talk about the slavery and exploitation WITHIN the industry of selling sex that is one thing. If you want to say that selling sex IS slavery and exploitation as you clearly did above... that is another.

The former we would be in near total agreement on. The latter is nonsense you merely invented and asserted as fact.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you’re going to assert I said anything and then try and argue against something I never said, you’re not giving me any more reason to entertain your nonsense.

Great, but since I never did that, it is not relevant.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Decriminalisation wouldn’t suddenly make

Same issue here as before. You are pretending to know what a change in legal status, or regulation, would or would not affect without offering ANY details of how it would be enacted.

Until we know the details of how it would be done, we are only engaging in fantasy about what effects it would or would not have.