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
Gardai find naked man whipped on crucifix in Dublin club, naked audience watch
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
I don't think this means what you think it means: this is explicitly calling out 'the exploitation of prostitution of others'; it is not making nor purporting to make any judgements on prostitution itself.
You can’t have missed the ‘or other forms of sexual exploitation’ in that sentence? Of course it’s making a judgment on prostitution itself. The whole document in context refers to people being trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation, which undoubtedly refers to prostitution.A cursory glance would show that indeed some prostitutes objected on various grounds ranging from fees and taxation to privacy concerns: I don't see anything to indicate a majority objected wholesale to the act. Indeed I wouldn't be terribly surprised even if they did; I can't imagine too many people working cash in hand would necessarily enjoy paying additional tax and fees to remain licensed. Likewise brothels being responsible for only employing licensed prostitutes etc. etc.
As far as the paper above they mentioned that making it illegal to pay an unlicensed prostitute for sex is also important if your goal is to reduce or eliminate trafficking; as are stiff penalties for the clients. I don't see that this has been done in Germany.
Sheesh! Ok then, some prostitutes and brothel owners objected to regulation, for reasons including the idea that they would no longer be able to work anonymously, that they would be required to use condoms, that the definition of prostitution was too broad, that no other industry was subject to the same standards and a class action lawsuit against the act was lodged with the ECHR on the basis that the act was in breach of human rights law.
It wasn’t objected to on the grounds that prostitutes would have to pay tax, that was required of all prostitutes anyway on the basis that prostitution is treated as a profession in Germany, and if there’s one thing Germany does well, it’s taxation (they have a mind-boggling number of different taxes for different purposes over there
). 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »I don’t think it actually is a fact that prostitution being legal in other countries has reduced exploitation, it appears to have had the opposite effect. That is - increased exploitation.
<Citations needed>One eyed Jack wrote: »The problem is you’re ignoring what Irish law says constitutes consent.
Says the guy making up his own standards of consent, pretending that consent is negated by money. We are all actually paid for the work we do. I am currently a programmer. I consent to being a programmer. The fact I am PAID to be a programmer does not mean I am being exploited, or that I am not consenting to the work I do. The problem is that once again, as people keep pointing out to you, you have a hang up about sex and you treat anything regarding sex to a different standard to everything else purely for emotional reasons.
There was a thread by an actual sex worker on this forum not so long ago. An AMA thread. People should go read the opinions of an actual sex worker and not the opinions about sex work of a middle aged single white male. Not of you and not of me.One eyed Jack wrote: »it hasn’t done anything to curb exploitation.
Well yeah that is because YOU and YOU ALONE define sex work itself as exploitation. So the only way to "curb exploitation" in your world view is to actually stop sex work from happening. So sure, regulation does not curb exploitation as YOU define exploitation. The problem is no one else I have ever seen or met in the online or offline world defines it like you do. You are entirely alone in this it seems.One eyed Jack wrote: »I don’t have to convince anyone of anything, they can see it for themselves.
Ehhhhh the user you are replying to cant and nor can I. You appear to not only be imagining things about reality, but also then imagining people agree with what you imagine about reality. Again: Citations needed. Got any? Preferably a citation you have read this time as last time I asked you for one you cited a link that said the direct opposite of what you claimed it said and then legged it from the thread entirely when this was pointed out
One eyed Jack wrote: »Regulation wouldn’t mean the industry wouldn’t still be controlled by people willing to exploit others.
As the user you are replying to pointed out, that is true about ANY industry. However making it legal to buy AND sell sex, and regulate this in a meaningful fashion means you give the consumer the choice. Just like a consumer can choose to but legal tobacco and pay taxes on it, or they can choose to fund illegal crime groups and terrorists by buying black market product.
Further, as long as the purchase and/or sale of sex is illegal.... simply by definition the consumers paying for sex are people who do not respect or follow the law. They are criminals by definition. Actual good moral law abiding citizens.... you know the people we would actually WANT to be the clientele of sex workers 100% of the time..... are excluded. The very people we would WANT to buy sex from sex workers are the very people who will not do it. The worst people we would want to keep away from sex workers.... are the very people we sent to their door with pointless and unjustifiable (especially by you) laws.
That blood is on your hands. MY hands are are clean.One eyed Jack wrote: »However it isn’t any easier to identify criminality in a regulated industry
For the 4th or 5th time however you are making up results of "regulation" without going into ANY details about what that regulation would be or how it would operate. You are once again engaging in pure fantasy. Until we see what regulation is proposed, and how it would be implemented and enforced, you simply have no idea whatsoever outside fantasy la la land what the effects of it would be, could be, or should be.
Scare mongering is an MO you employ often. And that is what this is here again.One eyed Jack wrote: »The minority I was referring to are the minority of people who argue in favour of decriminalising prostitution in Ireland.
Citations needed again. I have actually not seen a recent poll on public opinion on this matter. And your tendency to imagine the majority agree with you as default would make me sceptical without one. The last poll on public opinion I saw was a 2019 poll in the UK where more Britons support sex work law reform than oppose It and almost exactly half of Britons supported the decriminalisation of brothels which, last time I read it, was punishable by 7 years in prison.
What polls are there in Ireland outside your imagination? I vaguely remember thejournal.ie did a poll on it in 2015 where over 66% of people voted it should be legal entirely. I can seek that out and cite that if you want, as at least one of us cites our sources if and when asked.One eyed Jack wrote: »ut the law exists to reduce that risk and discourage people from considering prostitution in the first place as a means to provide for themselves.
Laws that sex workers themselves, you know the people affected in a way a middle class middle aged white catholic males are not, said in a 2019 Irish Times article are not fit for purpose after some sex workers in Kildare were jailed.One eyed Jack wrote: »I suppose this is as good a place to start as any, the article discusses a study of a comprehensive analysis of 116 countries.
As per usual you like to cite biased opinion pieces ABOUT research rather than cite the research itself however. If one goes to the actual paper the opinion piece is about you will find that they actually conclude that:
"Our central finding, i.e., that countries with legalized prostitution experience a larger reported incidence of trafficking inflows, is therefore best regarded as being based on the most reliable existing data, but needs to be subjected to future scrutiny. More research in this area is definitely warranted, but it will require the collection of more reliable data to establish firmer conclusions. The likely negative consequences of legalized prostitution on a country’s inflows of human trafficking might be seen to support those who argue in favor of banning prostitution, thereby reducing the flows of trafficking (e.g., Outshoorn, 2005). However, such a line of argumentation overlooks potential benefits that the legalization of prostitution might have on those employed in the industry."
Not the first time, by far, that you have cited things that actually directly oppose your own positions rather than support them so.
What I will grant you however is that where it has been made legal it has very often been done very badly. I live in Germany for example. Were I to have the desire, and the finances, to visit a sex worker here I would currently have absolutely no way to discern a consenting adult from a coerced slave. As a consumer I am blind. If I go and purchase cigarettes or alcohol however there is a government issued holographic label afixed to the product. Or if I go to a country where cannabis is legal I can go into a dispenser and tell them my requirements for the product and I would know EXACTLY what I am purchasing, right down to things like THC contents.
It is NOT enough to merely legalise it and walk away and hope everything will be alright in other words. If we were ever to fully legalise and regulate it, from the side of purchase and of sale, I hope deeply we do it RIGHT. Not just hand wave it to legality and let nature take it's course. There are many ways we could try to achieve such a thing. Ways that I am not aware of a single country as yet ever having done.One eyed Jack wrote: »I’m against all forms of human exploitation.
Again, so am I. In fact I think every single person on this entire thread are. Your high moral horse here is the same height as the rest of ours.
The issue is pretending something you personally do not like is exploitation just because you say so. This is something you simply are not the arbiter of.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »You can’t have missed the ‘or other forms of sexual exploitation’ in that sentence? Of course it’s making a judgment on prostitution itself. The whole document in context refers to people being trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation, which undoubtedly refers to prostitution.
The directive you're talking about is specifically about trafficking; and it only mentions prostitution as exploitation in the context of trafficked people. If prostitution was going to be outlawed across Europe it wouldn't be done so in a directive which only mentions the word literally two times.
Your own personal view appears to be that prostitution is by definition sexual exploitation; and that definition is absolutely not how it is used in the context of European Directives or indeed any other context I've come across.One eyed Jack wrote: »It wasn’t objected to on the grounds that prostitutes would have to pay tax, that was required of all prostitutes anyway on the basis that prostitution is treated as a profession in Germany, and if there’s one thing Germany does well, it’s taxation (they have a mind-boggling number of different taxes for different purposes over there).
It certainly was one of the objections; in particular the fact all prostitutes would be required by law to register and furthermore that that registration information would be sent to the relevant tax offices: "The information about the registration confirmation is sent automatically in electronic form to the responsible tax offices (§34 Abs. 8 ProstSchG)."
In any case the fundamental point I was making is that many of those working within the sex work sector would have various reasons to object to any proposed legislation; but those objections don't automatically mean the legislation is unfit for purpose or does not provide benefits both to those within the sector and wider society.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement