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

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it discourages an attitude in society of regarding people as nothing more than property which can be bought and sold as long as one has the money.

It really doesn't though. As has been explained to you multiple times, we can still buy and sell people like property in a multitude of other contexts. It was already mentioned, though you simply dodged it at the time, that we can do something else that "harks back to slavery" and I can buy someone to come in and clean my house and toilets every day if I so wish. We can also hire people into our army or our police force to go and fight and die for our country and defends our freedoms. I can hire a free lance masseur to run every part of my body EXCEPT my genitals on a whim.

So as "PCB" called it, though you deny it, it is only your attitudes to sex that are the mediating factor here. As soon as it is sex, all bets are off and suddenly hiring someone for a job is "slavery" and "exploitation" and "rape" and "sex without consent" and all the other fantastical nonsense you have thrown at it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At the same time I would prefer that people didn’t view prostitution as a viable means to support themselves

That is not up to you though. What people want to do as a career in THEIR lives is up to them. We do not need benign dictators telling people how to live their lives. There are many people who choose sex work as a career. Many of them even enjoy it and love their job. Many others hate it. But welcome to the real world, the same is true of just about any job in the job market. Some people love their work, other people doing the same jobs hate that work. Such is life.

We should of course do our best to give people options and facilitate their reskilling to get out of any career they hate. Not just sex workers. EVERYONE. I for one loved the Irish "mature student" concept in colleges for example. A nice way to ensure people in a career they hate can go back to study again after a certain age for relatively little or no money. That kind of thing is great.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point is essentially that by providing viable alternatives and opportunities for people, the inclination towards prostitution as a means to support themselves is dramatically reduced.

Sure, but that should have nothing to do with sex work. We should provide support for ALL people to reduce as best we can than ANYONE will chose ANY career they do not actually want to be in. Just because they feel they have to or it is their only choice. IF that gets people our of sex work who do not want to be in sex work too, then that is of course a great thing.

But doing so from a place of wanting all people to be the best version of themselves, and doing that from a place where one is just emotionally biased by personal sexual hangups to hate sex work in and of itself.... are two very different things.

Day Lewin

Zetasharp wrote: »

I suspect the true reason people like Kiki despise prostitution comes down to control.

It's easier to for women to control men when there is a limited supply of sex.

Bitter but contains a grain of truth.

I couldn't count the number of male posters in boards.ie who say bitter things like "once we were married she stopped wanting any"
and
"have kids and say goodbye to your sexlife"

And why shouldn't those men get a little thrill now and again, even if they pay for it?

Sex is a very basic right. Libido doesn't lie down and die just because it is unsatisfied.

And in every Irish town - in fact, in every town in the world - there are women willing to meet this need, that are locally known and quietly tolerated. (and not trafficked: just running a business!)

Of course, the married women hate them. Understandable!

One eyed Jack

Day Lewin wrote: »

Thought that some of you might find this an interesting read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_New_Zealand

After the passage of this enlightened and liberal law, trafficking did NOT increase and the women felt more empowered and the financial rewards were deemed attractive.

The reason why trafficking isn’t regarded as an issue in New Zealand in the first place is because it’s dealt with by the Immigration Authorities who are more interested in border control, it’s not an issue for the police. That’s not to suggest that trafficking doesn’t happen, it does, but it’s an issue that has always been swept under the carpet so to speak.

With regard to women feeling more empowered, I suppose that depends on what one means by empowered. As ex-prostitute from New Zealand Sabrina Valisce said, about the idea of prostitution being empowering -

“not being starving and not being homeless is not empowering, it’s just... a little bit better”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pasJGGunWsk

The financial rewards are deemed more attractive by who exactly? Because certainly while the financial rewards for pimps and brothel owners are attractive, they’re not all that attractive to anyone else. Even the Government funded NZPC don’t bother to address the shìtty conditions and treatment of prostitutes, they’re more interested in promoting prostitution and silencing any dissent -


Chelsea is keen to see an investigation into the NZPC. She says: “They present themselves as a group for prostituted people in NZ, something like a union for us, if you will. But they have no interest in listening to or serving women who question or oppose their full-decriminalisation stance.

“They haven’t ever done anything unions normally do such as work for better pay for prostituted women and less oppression from management and brothel owners.” Renee notes that the power and tactics used by groups like the government-funded NZPC, stifle dissent from the “sex work is work” line and the neoliberal narrative of “empowerment” and “free choice.”

“Blackmailing, including of survivors, is one of the means by which this language has taken hold. Encouraging women, prostituted or not, to believe that it is critiques of prostitution that create the ‘stigma’ that causes violence constitutes such blackmail.

“Survivors who contributed to the book Prostitution Narratives, launched in 2016, also experienced the kind of backlash that illustrates why many survivors critical of decriminalisation and prostitution itself might stay quiet for their own safety. Activists from Scarlet Alliance [the Australian branch of the Global Network of Sex Work Projects] came to book launches with the intention to disrupt and shout down contributors.”

New Zealand is a cautionary tale, and increasingly governments across the world are recognising full decriminalisation as a failed experiment paid for with the lives of vulnerable women and girls.


The New Zealand women challenging the neoliberal narrative of ‘empowerment’ in prostitution

Day Lewin

Also an interesting read!

jam_mac_jam

Day Lewin wrote: »

Bitter but contains a grain of truth.

I couldn't count the number of male posters in boards.ie who say bitter things like "once we were married she stopped wanting any"
and
"have kids and say goodbye to your sexlife"

And why shouldn't those men get a little thrill now and again, even if they pay for it?

Sex is a very basic right. Libido doesn't lie down and die just because it is unsatisfied.

And in every Irish town - in fact, in every town in the world - there are women willing to meet this need, that are locally known and quietly tolerated. (and not trafficked: just running a business!)

Of course, the married women hate them. Understandable!

I don't think that's fair and it's an easy way to dismiss the opinion of women. Not all married women hate prostitutes, I'm sure some do but not all women have low sex drives or see prostitution as some sort of threat.


If you didn't want to have sex with your husband would it not be better if he went somewhere else without emotional commitment.

There is an element of that but there are other concerns with prostitution that you can't just dismiss because all women think the same.

I personally think that there are advantages to legalizing it in protecting people who work in it and also decreasing stigma to those people. I wouldn't like the level of forced prostitution that you see in Germany or the Netherlands.

I don't hate them.

Assetbacked

KiKi III wrote: »

Does a sex club in Prague count, that's the closest to the above I've experienced?

Have you read/listened to the accounts of women in Direct Provision and heroin addicts whose vulnerabilty was exploited by pimps and punters?

What has direct provision got to do with people consensually meeting for sex? Some clothing may have child exploitation in the supply chain, does that mean we ban the sale of clothes? There will always been abuses in any commercial enterprise which need to be stamped out.

The Prague sex club counts; how exciting was it? The freedom and sort of taboo feel to the whole thing, all consensual - sex is an extremely healthy activity that people should be having lots of as it makes you feel good. If a man wants to be paid to be humiliated in a club with consenting adults, that this could be considered a crime is embarrassing.

If anything, the straight men are the ones suffering here with the balance of power with sex being tilted in favour of women as men are pretty much always turned on in comparison to women and women exploit this supply and demand imbalance for profit.

One eyed Jack

Day Lewin wrote: »

Bitter but contains a grain of truth.

I couldn't count the number of male posters in boards.ie who say bitter things like "once we were married she stopped wanting any"
and
"have kids and say goodbye to your sexlife"

And why shouldn't those men get a little thrill now and again, even if they pay for it?

Sex is a very basic right. Libido doesn't lie down and die just because it is unsatisfied.

And in every Irish town - in fact, in every town in the world - there are women willing to meet this need, that are locally known and quietly tolerated. (and not trafficked: just running a business!)

Of course, the married women hate them. Understandable!

It isn’t though. There is nothing in law which guarantees anyone the right to sex. In fact quite the opposite in that Ireland has criminalised the idea of men thinking they were entitled to sex with their wives since 1990, but there continues to be a pervasive attitude held by some people that they are entitled to sex, which leads to this sort of attitudes and behaviours that minimise the gravity of the offence -


Call for urgent review of marital rape sentencing after man has sentence cut


There’s nobody arguing with the idea that anyone shouldn’t be able to have a thrill every now and then, but that’s an idea that’s distinct from prostitution. It’s not that anyone hates prostitutes either, it’s more to do with the fact that they hate the idea of being cheated on by someone who feels they’re entitled to have a thrill every now and then without the other person or persons in the relationship knowing about it. It’s not just married women who hate that sort of attitude and behaviour, most people, both men and women, aren’t too keen on it.

It has very little to do with prostitution though other than some people who imagine they have a right to sex. Even if a right to sex did exist in law, it would be the same as any other rights which already exist to protect people from exploitation. It would still criminalise people who engage in the exploitation of other people. It wouldn’t simply be quite as straightforward as “pay for play”.

The idea too that married women hate prostitutes ignores the reality that there are plenty of women who got into prostitution as a result of having been left destitute by their husbands after he decided he wanted a little thrill every now and then without telling her as if she didn’t have a right to know what he was doing when it undoubtedly affects her too.

Day Lewin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It isn’t though. There is nothing in law which guarantees anyone the right to sex. In fact quite the opposite too.

Never mind about the law: I was referring to a very simple, basic, animal drive. It does exist - in fact it is such an unstoppable drive that a species can't survive without it.
Never underestimate the urgency of that evolutionary drive.

One eyed Jack

Day Lewin wrote: »

Never mind about the law: I was referring to a very simple, basic, animal drive. It does exist - in fact it is such an unstoppable drive that a species can't survive without it.
Never underestimate the urgency of that evolutionary drive.

I get you now, yeah there’s no doubt the instinct to procreate exists alright, and it’s true a species wouldn’t survive without procreation, but procreation is generally bad for business if you’re in the business of prostitution... unless you’re referring to appealing to a very niche market of men who get off on having sex with women when they’re pregnant. That’s a natural instinct too, just not a very common one, and nothing inherently wrong with it either.

I’ve known plenty of women who’s libido skyrocketed when they were pregnant, their partners weren’t too keen on the idea of having sex with them though. Even still their partners didn’t want to visit prostitutes, because that’s not a simple basic drive in anyone. It’s an attitude that’s prevalent only in a minority of people who imagine that when they’re paying for something, they get to call the shots, and the other person or persons don’t matter - they want their desires met as that’s what they feel they’re paying for.

The question anyone should ask themselves is would the people who are willing to have sex for money be as willing to do so if there was no incentive involved? If they are, then play ball. If they’re not, then they’re not motivated by any sex drive, they’re simply motivated by the need to support themselves.

Day Lewin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The question anyone should ask themselves is would the people who are willing to have sex for money be as willing to do so if there was no incentive involved? If they are, then play ball. If they’re not, then they’re not motivated by any sex drive, they’re simply motivated by the need to support themselves.

Money is a tremendous motivator: it gets men down coal mines, beggars begging, drug lords importing, sweated workers labouring sixeen hours a day to make teeshirts --kids picking litter off landfills -

In short, being willing to do something for money is not a disqualifier. Even if its unpalatable.
Though I imagine that you wouldn't enter the sex trade if you really hated it.

So yeah, of course trafficking is terrible. Nobody should be so desperate that they fall victim to it.

And yeah, if someone wants to do sex work they should be let (and protected)

One eyed Jack

Day Lewin wrote: »

Money is a tremendous motivator: it gets men down coal mines, beggars begging, drug lords importing, sweated workers labouring sixeen hours a day to make teeshirts --kids picking litter off landfills -

In short, being willing to do something for money is not a disqualifier. Even if its unpalatable.
Though I imagine that you wouldn't enter the sex trade if you really hated it.

So yeah, of course trafficking is terrible. Nobody should be so desperate that they fall victim to it.

And yeah, if someone wants to do sex work they should be let (and protected)

That’s all true, except for the fact that it’s not money is the unpalatable disqualifier, it’s the exploitation, in any industry, that’s the disqualifier, and the exploitation that’s prevalent in prostitution is the very reason why the people who are exploited aren’t criminalised, whereas the people who exploit them, are.

There’s nothing stopping anyone who wants to from getting into prostitution if that’s what they want to do, the law is only interested in targeting those people who exploit anyone involved in prostitution or profit from exploiting other people, and protecting people from becoming victims of exploitation.

There’s simply no way to decriminalise prostitution without acknowledging the fact that it’s driven by exploitation of people who need to support themselves. Decriminalisation of prostitution simply isn’t worth it when one examines the effects of decriminalisation. People are seeing this in the States now too and I imagine her position on prostitution is going to come back to haunt Elizabeth Warren in her bid to become the next President -

Elizabeth Warren 'open' to decriminalizing prostitution, victimizing exploited women again


She doesn’t have to look any further than the current president to see the effect that decriminalisation of prostitution would have - it would simply encourage that same sort of attitude and behaviour towards others, that it should somehow be acceptable for anyone to exploit someone who isn’t in a position to protect themselves from exploitation.

conorhal

I sometimes wonder how people that post about legalizing prostitution would react if their darling daughter was told by her school guidance counsellor that her grades suggested a life of toil, but her ass suggested a highly paid career as a prostitute and she that should give the oldest profession some thought?
Would he wait outside her workplace if she's asked dad for a lift home from work and watch the parade of punters cum and go and think to himself, 'my what hard working little earner she is, so proud' or jsut consider hooking his exhaust pipe up to a hose?

Day Lewin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

.....fact that it’s driven by exploitation of people who need to support themselves.....

This is true of the entire system of jobs, offices, industry, manufacturing - the whole reason for the existence of trade unions.

Of course profiteers exploit workers: its how capitalism runs the world economies!

Day Lewin

conorhal wrote: »

I sometimes wonder how people that post about legalizing prostitution would react if their darling daughter was told by her school guidance counsellor that her grades suggested a life of toil, but her ass suggested a highly paid career as a prostitute and she that should give the oldest profession some thought?
Would he wait outside her workplace if she's asked dad for a lift home from work and watch the parade of punters cum and go and think to himself, 'my what hard working little earner she is, so proud' or jsut consider hooking his exhaust pipe up to a hose?

She might be good at it! and make tons of money!

How is this different from Miss World and the gruesome Toddler Pageant?

Does Daddy's opinion matter that much? (He doesn't sound like a very nice fellow anyway)

But if she keeps this a secret, she is vulnerable in the hidden world, the threat of blackmail, the risk of coercion.

Nope, open and legal in the light of scrutiny is the way to aim for.

One eyed Jack

Day Lewin wrote: »

This is true of the entire system of jobs, offices, industry, manufacturing - the whole reason for the existence of trade unions.

Of course profiteers exploit workers: its how capitalism runs the world economies!

It’s true, but there is employment legislation to protect people from exploitation no matter what their field of employment. Prostitution isn’t considered legitimate employment in Ireland, and even in countries like New Zealand which is the example you used earlier, in reality exploitation in the industry is rife, but anyone who is the victim of exploitation knows the potential consequences of speaking out about it - it presents a threat to their safety just as much as being in the industry presents a threat to their safety.

There’s just as great a stigma surrounds speaking out against prostitution in a so-called enlightened and liberal society, as there is in being a prostitute in the first place, and even decriminalisation has had no effect on reducing any stigma in spite of the many claims that it does.

One eyed Jack

Day Lewin wrote: »

Nope, open and legal in the light of scrutiny is the way to aim for.

Prostitutes generally speaking don’t want to be under anyone’s scrutiny, the people who abuse them even less so. There’s no point in unions because the people involved in these unions are only interested in protecting their own interests, and not the interests of the people they claim to represent.

The NZPC and the SWAI are exactly the types of lobby groups who want to maintain the status quo within the industry and try and silence prostitutes and ex-prostitutes who don’t tow the party line of decriminalisation.

nozzferrahhtoo

conorhal wrote: »

I sometimes wonder how people that post about legalizing prostitution would react if their darling daughter was told by her school guidance counsellor that her grades suggested a life of toil, but her ass suggested a highly paid career as a prostitute and she that should give the oldest profession some thought?

I think career guidance in school is generally a load of tripe anyway. At least how I experienced it. So to be honest I would spare barely a thought for ANY advice these paid frauds offer regardless. The two times in my own life I ever met these charlatans they came into the school, having never met me once before in their entire lives, they took about a 30 second glance over some sheet of paper they had been given by the principle, and then proceeded to tell me what I should be doing with my life.

Not only did everything they told me not fit with me, my skills, my personality, or my hopes for my life at all..... when talking to others in my class afterwards about half of them were told EXACTLY the same things, pretty much word for word, as I was. These people seemed like nothing but walking Horoscopes to me. They learn off a few things they think will generically fit as many people as possible, and parrot them out to anyone who will listen.

Apologies to anyone who does that work seriously or well (if anyone) but I am going solely and merely on my own direct experiences.

conorhal wrote: »

Would he wait outside her workplace if she's asked dad for a lift home from work and watch the parade of punters cum and go and think to himself, 'my what hard working little earner she is, so proud' or jsut consider hooking his exhaust pipe up to a hose?

However these threads on sex work almost invariably have some variant of people who wander in and ask some variation on the question "Well would you still be ok with sex work if it was YOUR children doing it?". And the honest answer for me is I would be fine with it entirely IF it was what my child actually wanted to do as a career. I would much prefer they choose a career that makes them happy, and brings them meaning and well being in life, than they end up in a career they hate just because they think it is what they should do, or some charlatan "career guidance" fraud told them to do it.

There are many careers we as parents would not choose for our children if it were up to us. Why stop at sex work? Cleaning toilets, killing people on the front lines for the army, repossessing assets from poor people who could not make their loan repayments. Would we actively WANT kids to grow up to do those things? Probably many of us would not. But at the end of the day our role as parents, as a wiser man than I showed me, is not to choose our children's lives or careers for them. But to afford them the educations and the skills to make that choice for themselves.... and then to be supportive of their choices especially if made for the rights reasons for THEIR lives, situation, characters, wants and desires.

And if growing up to do sex work is what my daughter ultimately WANTS to do.... I am absolutely and entirely ok with that so long as I know that I as a parent afforded her everything she required to make that decision for herself and for the right reasons. And I absolutely would be proud of her for doing so than I would be if she became a top paid medical surgeon just because society told her to do so and she fell over to conform.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But at the end of the day our role as parents, as a wiser man than I showed me, is not to choose our children's lives or careers for them. But to afford them the educations and the skills to make that choice for themselves.... and then to be supportive of their choices especially if made for the rights reasons for THEIR lives, situation, characters, wants and desires.

And if growing up to do sex work is what my daughter ultimately WANTS to do.... I am absolutely and entirely ok with that so long as I know that I as a parent afforded her everything she required to make that decision for herself and for the right reasons. And I absolutely would be proud of her for doing so than I would be if she became a top paid medical surgeon just because society told her to do so and she fell over to conform.

Tbh I don’t see how that’s any different from any parent who supports their children’s choices while they agree that their children are making choices they approve of?

It seems obvious to assume that if someone is in favour of decriminalisation that they would support their own children if they wanted to get into the industry - stands to reason that their children are making choices their parents approve of. I don’t think it’s unusual or unreasonable that parents wouldn’t support their children’s choices if they felt their children were making choices which they didn’t feel were right for their children, and as you suggest (if it is what you’re suggesting) - we don’t stop there, and there are all sorts of lifestyle choices and careers that parents don’t approve of and don’t support their children in doing.

I just don’t see how there’s anything unwise in parents not supporting their children’s choices when their children feel that they are making the right choices for themselves, and the parents disagree? What I’m getting I suppose from your post is that you’d support your children or any child really if the child wanted to become a guidance counsellor if that’s what they wanted to do and you felt they were making a choice you approved of. It’s easy to offer your support in that case and doesn’t require any wisdom whatsoever - your support is still contingent upon them making choices you approve of, and there’s nothing wise or unwise about that? I just don’t see what’s unwise about a parent choosing not to support their children if their children are making a decision for themselves that their parents don’t agree with?

I can understand that it would be likely to have an impact on their children’s self-esteem if they feel they don’t have their parents full support, or the child prefers to keep what they do a secret from their parents because they know their parents wouldn’t approve of their decision, but I’d see that as an unwise choice that their children are making, based upon making assumptions about their parents. It’s not their parents fault that their children are choosing to keep what they’re doing a secret from their parents, and of course such an unwise choice is likely to have a detrimental impact on their children’s mental health. It’s one of the reasons why prostitutes who say they are willingly working in the sex industry experience mental health issues - because they are keeping what they do a secret from their parents, family, friends and neighbours. They’re acutely aware of the idea that people would not approve of what they are doing and would not want to support them.

That’s why instead most people will choose to aspire to become top paid medical surgeons or guidance counsellors or life coaches or massage therapists as opposed to getting into the sex industry. It’s why third level institutions, instead of approving of the student body selling their bodies, they disapprove of it, and why students will engage in prostitution in secret - because they don’t want to lose out on the opportunities that they know education gives them to get out of prostitution and poverty and being unable to support themselves in what society values as legitimate career choices.

Essentially, nobody is forcing people who choose to enter into the sex industry to conform to anything, that choice simply comes with it’s own consequences, which include acknowledging that nobody else is under any obligation to support or facilitate the choices people make for themselves if they don’t agree with those choices. It’s become something of an issue in the UK and Ireland where students who are unable to afford education are getting into prostitution to support themselves -


University launches investigation into sex work support group's stall at freshers' fair


I don’t think it’s unwise for any University to state that they have a duty of care towards their students that does not include supporting prostitution. I would suggest the same of parents that they have a duty of care towards their children and I don’t think it would be unwise or unreasonable for them to state that does not include supporting their children’s choice to get into prostitution, whether or not they could afford education.

There are a multitude of other means to access education or being able to afford to educate oneself without becoming involved in prostitution, and I think those opportunities should be promoted more, as opposed to promoting decriminalisation which doesn’t actually reduce any stigma towards prostitution which even in countries where it is decriminalised and legal, is still seen as something of a last resort for an underclass of people, as opposed to something entered into freely by wealthy people for whom prostitution is a choice when they’re looking for a bit of excitement in their lives -


How I became a sex worker at 52 — and loved it


They’re two very different scenarios -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjwktdR_X-Y

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Tbh I don’t see how that’s any different from any parent who supports their children’s choices while they agree that their children are making choices they approve of?

I was talking about the children making choice we do NOT approve of, not the choices they do. I was talking about a choice I would not make for them, and might prefer they did not make themselves. But IF they make a choice I would prefer they did so having been given the tools by me to do so, then I will put aside my own preferences and prejudices and be proud of the parent I am/was leading to that decision. Even if I absolutely hate the decision. Because my job as a parent is not to make their decisions for them.

My approval of their ability to decide for themselves, is distinct from my approval of the actual choices themselves. My job as a parent is not to approve of OR disapprove of their decisions. My approval or lack of it is irrelevant. My job as a parent is to ensure that I give them the tools and education to decide for themselves, and then to support them on their path. By the time they are adults and are making these decisions... they are just that.... adults. Not kids.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s one of the reasons why prostitutes who say they are willingly working in the sex industry experience mental health issues - because they are keeping what they do a secret from their parents, family, friends and neighbours. They’re acutely aware of the idea that people would not approve of what they are doing and would not want to support them.

Which is a great reason to destigmatise work where people are not doing anything at all wrong. Not just sex work either. There are many careers people end up in that they feel compelled not to be open about with others. And that does indeed hamper their well being. And there are many things we as individuals or we as a society can do to help such people often. Removing a pointless and ineffectual and harmful criminal element from that industry would be one such thing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s why instead most people will choose to aspire to become top paid medical surgeons or guidance counsellors or life coaches or massage therapists as opposed to getting into the sex industry.

Which is a bad thing, and a harmful aspect of the skewed priorities and incentives our society affords us. That anyone, sex work or not, would pick a career they have no interest in or love for over one they might ACTUALLY want to do.... whatever that career might be..... can be tragic. How many genuinely good artists or performers for example were cajoled into some allegedly more lucrative career in the history of our people, often by their own parents, and ended up miserable as a result? I certainly do not know. But anecdotally it is tragic every time I experience such people and their pain.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

acknowledging that nobody else is under any obligation to support or facilitate the choices people make for themselves

Do they even want or require that? Or do they just want us to keep our nose the hell out of it entirely? Like anyone else in any other career. I keep asking, but you keep dodging, why it is different to similar pursuits just because genitals are involved. If we should "support or facilitate" ANY career, then why not this one? It is not that they are seeking any extra level of support or facilitation, so much as you for no reason you are yet able to articulate other than conflating things with words you pluck out of thin air, why they should be afforded LESS of it.

I have yet to see a single argument on this thread for NOT treating their career like any other, aside from you simply plucking the words like "exploitation" and acting like sex work is automatically that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s become something of an issue in the UK and Ireland where students who are unable to afford education are getting into prostitution to support themselves

And blaming that on sex work, attacking sex work, adding illegal elements to sex work, or hampering students who choose sex work are all likely to do bugger all to improve their situation or that of anyone else in the future faced with similar choices.

The fact is that education which arguably should be as much a right as any other right we as humans hold dear, is priced out of the range of such people and we should address THAT, rather than worry about what they themselves do to cope with that.

Address the disease rather than getting all puritan about the symptoms based on nothing but hang ups about sex and sexuality that they likely do not share.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think it’s unwise for any University to state that they have a duty of care towards their students that does not include supporting prostitution.

Again, it is not "support" for it that is required. It is staying the hell out of it because it is none of their business that would be more useful. I went to university. I had a job to help pay for that. My university did not know, or care, or even think to ask, what my employments outside the education were. Nor should they, unless it included data privacy breeches or theft of intellectual property.

Whether I was flipping burger meat, or flipping ass meat, it should have nothing to do with them ideally. And could do, if legal issues were removed from the equation.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would suggest the same of parents that they have a duty of care towards their children and I don’t think it would be unwise or unreasonable for them to state that does not include supporting their children’s choice to get into prostitution, whether or not they could afford education.

And again this verb "support" is being thrown where it is not required in ways very different from how it was used in the post you are barely replying to. My job as a parent is not to support their decisions. It is to support their ability to make their own decisions, and then support THEM in and following whatever decisions they make. I repeat, I see my role as a parent as giving my kids the tools to make their adult decisions as adults later for themselves, and not require my approval or active support or hand holding to do so. When I speak of supporting their decisions this is very distinct from approval of their decisions. I could in fact do the former while wholly not doing the latter.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think those opportunities should be promoted more, as opposed to promoting decriminalisation

Not mutually exclusive at all. I think we should actively do both. Let's not pretend it can not be.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Do they even want or require that? Or do they just want us to keep our nose the hell out of it entirely? Like anyone else in any other career. I keep asking, but you keep dodging, why it is different to similar pursuits just because genitals are involved. If we should "support or facilitate" ANY career, then why not this one? It is not that they are seeking any extra level of support or facilitation, so much as you for no reason you are yet able to articulate other than conflating things with words you pluck out of thin air, why they should be afforded LESS of it.

I’ve never argued that anyone should support or facilitate any career? I thought the point you were making was that we don’t, and I agreed with you when I thought that’s the point you were making. Prostitution isn’t any different to other pursuits? Like any lifestyle or career choice people have their issues with it and like any lifestyle or career choice of course the State isn’t going to stay out of it, because it is the States business, and people aren’t going to stay out of it because it’s people’s business too. Be lovely for people of course if they could just do what they like and not have to comply with “society’s expectations and standards”, but that’s just not going to happen, and for very good reason - the main one of course being to protect people from exploitation.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Address the disease rather than getting all puritan about the symptoms based on nothing but hang ups about sex and sexuality that they likely do not share.

The disease if you want to view it in those terms, is poverty. Prostitution is but one of the symptoms of poverty. Lack of education is another symptom, and the Government does address those symptoms with initiatives like free education and social supports. It has feckall to do with any perceived hang ups about sex and sexuality that anyone does or doesn’t share.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again, it is not "support" for it that is required. It is staying the hell out of it because it is none of their business that would be more useful.

I disagree, of course it’s the University’s business if there are students of the University are having to enter into prostitution to fund their education. That’s why there are all sorts of educational initiatives that weren’t there when I attended third level education for the first time many years ago. Not only am I glad the supports are now there, but the people who have been able to avail of them as opposed to having to enter into prostitution, are quite relieved they’re there too. Third level institutions have a duty of care towards their students, and that’s why they really don’t have the luxury of choosing to stay out of what absolutely is their business - the welfare of the student body.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not mutually exclusive at all. I think we should actively do both. Let's not pretend it can not be.

I don’t understand why you’re pointing out they’re not mutually exclusive, I never suggested they were in the first place? I said specifically that I think educational opportunities should be promoted more as opposed to promoting decriminalisation. Let’s not pretend like I had suggested they were mutually exclusive. You can even suggest we should actively do both if you want to, whereas I remain unconvinced by any argument in favour of decriminalisation you’ve put forward so far.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve never argued that anyone should support or facilitate any career?

It is not clear what you are arguing at all then. You are going on about how no one is "under any obligation to support or facilitate" these things and then that you "think it would be unwise or unreasonable for them to state that does not include supporting their children’s choice to get into prostitution". You are throwing the words "support" and "Facilitate" and similar around without being clear at all what you mean by them except that I think it is clear you are using them in a different way than I am. What your ACTUAL point is, is lost in the waffle.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Prostitution isn’t any different to other pursuits? Like any lifestyle or career choice people have their issues with it and like any lifestyle or career choice of course the State isn’t going to stay out of it, because it is the States business

Here, like you above, I could have been more clear as to what I am saying. When I said "Stay out of it" I did not mean stay out of it entirely. Of course they shouldn't because as you say the State does not stay out of many careers.

What I mean when I say the state, or the colleges, or me as a parent, should "stay out of it" is RELATIVE to any other career. As in, if we are going to treat it any differently to any other career, we should have justifiable reason to do so.

I am not seeing that justification anywhere. Least of all from you. Hence the question I repeatedly asked, and you repeatedly dodged in steadily more fatuous ways does to pretending not to understand first metaphor, then basic English turns of phrase like "dumb down". And the question STILL remains unanswered despite your earlier pretence to the contrary.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the main one of course being to protect people from exploitation.

Which as I keep saying we are in complete agreement on. I have every bit as much interest in protecting people from exploitation as you do. In many of the same ways you do. Where we differ is I do not, like you, merely find something I am personally against and then CALL it exploitation before running away from every request to justify that label.

Merely calling something exploitation does not magically turn it into exploitation. We are seemingly in complete agreement that exploitation WITHIN sex work is a bad thing. It is, as I explained numerous times already, your pretence that sex work IS, or is INHERENTLY, exploitation that you stray from the same path I am on....... into the forest of la la fantasy land.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The disease if you want to view it in those terms, is poverty. Prostitution is but one of the symptoms of poverty.

I can mostly agree with the first sentence, though I think you use a slightly more dilute version of the word poverty than I do.

The latter sentence however is more nonsense in my view. It is not that "prostitution is a symptom of poverty" as there are people who choose it who are NOT in poverty. If ONLY people in poverty were choosing sex work you might have a point. But it is not so. Not in prostitution, nor in any other kind of sex work. For example people similarly moan that people only make pornography because of poverty. There are however a MULTITUDE of websites on the internet where people make amateur pornography for no pay, no profit, but merely for the desire to do so.

What would make your second sentence more realistic and less nonsense would be to generalise it rather than focus it solely on your sexual hangups and the result of those hangups. That is "The disease if you want to view it in those terms, is poverty. Entering careers one does not want to enter, but feels compelled to enter due to their circumstances, is but one of the symptoms of poverty."

And that includes but is FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR from limited to just sex work. You could say it about ANY career in fact. If financial or other poverty circumstances compels someone into a career they have no actual interest in.... that is a bad thing we should work against. I studied a high level Computer Science degree for example. Half the people dropped out because they never wanted to be there in the first place and had no aptitude for it. They were compelled to go there due to circumstances and people telling them that was where the money was. Every drop out was a tragedy. Especially when the individual had no possibility of a Plan B.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I disagree, of course it’s the University’s business if there are students of the University are having to enter into prostitution to fund their education.

As with many of our conversations we risk entering a point where you tell me how it IS while I was talking about how I argue it SHOULD be, and hence we are not talking about the same thing. As I suspect that is what is about to happen here, I just want to make explicit that I am not arguing what IS the status quo but what I feel SHOULD be the status quo.

Assuming a student is not breaking any laws, my point is I do not see why it should be any of the university's business how a given student makes their own money in their free time. When I was in university I of course signed a clause that if I earned money outside my education that I would not A) Breach any privacy laws of the university or Profit from any intellectual property attained in the university or C) earn money illegally.

Other than that, I signed NOTHING and was aware of NOTHING that suggested they needed to be privy to my income streams or had any right to inquire. If the small print of that, or any other, university differs now than then.... then I am simply unaware of this. They neither knew what work I was doing outside Uni hours, nor am I aware they had any right to ask.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the people who have been able to avail of them as opposed to having to enter into prostitution, are quite relieved they’re there too.

And once again you get no argument from me here. 100% agreement. If there are supports stopping people having to do work they do not want to do, in order to pay for their education, that's a GOOD thing. I never said otherwise. Quite the opposite in fact.

The people who are relieved are the people who were saved from doing that work, when they did not want to, by those supports.

The people who were quite happy to do that work likely were not "relieved" nor might they even care. AGAIN the issue for me is to support people in avoiding work they do not want to do. The issue for you SEEMS just to be to keep people out of work YOU do not want them to do. Not what they want, what YOU want.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Third level institutions have a duty of care towards their students, and that’s why they really don’t have the luxury of choosing to stay out of what absolutely is their business - the welfare of the student body.

Which I am happy with as long as they can justify it by arguing something they are doing is actually in the interests of that welfare. Merely declaring it to be so, much like you merely declaring sex work to be exploitation, is not enough to make it so. Let us hear the arguments as to what they actually want to do, why, and on what basis. Then we can actually discuss it in anything but these vague terms you offer here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t understand why you’re pointing out they’re not mutually exclusive, I never suggested they were in the first place? I said specifically that I think educational opportunities should be promoted more as opposed to promoting decriminalisation.

It is the phrase "as opposed to" that I direct my response. I do not think we need to promote it "more" "as opposed to" the other. I think we can promote BOTH "more". It is BOTH the promotion of each, and the promotion of each "more" that I think is not mutually exclusive. The phrase "as opposed to" is superfluous white noise in that context.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I remain unconvinced by any argument in favour of decriminalisation you’ve put forward so far.

Yet since the arguments remain unrebutted, you being unconvinced says nothing at all. Your standard position in pretty much any thread I happen across you in is pretty much always just to argue in favor of status quo. So Quelle Surprise you remain unconvinced of anything else.

What is not happening however is A) A single argument coming from you actually indicting sex work A single argument coming from you justifying conflation of sex work with exploitation or C) a single answer coming from you answering some direct questions put to you by me or D) a single argument from you that manages a rebuttal of any of my positions pro decriminalisation and regulation.

To be honest I struggle to think of a single time I have ever replied to a post form you where my main agenda, or in fact any agenda at all I was operating under, was to convince YOU of anything.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As with many of our conversations we risk entering a point where you tell me how it IS while I was talking about how I argue it SHOULD be, and hence we are not talking about the same thing. As I suspect that is what is about to happen here, I just want to make explicit that I am not arguing what IS the status quo but what I feel SHOULD be the status quo.

...

To be honest I struggle to think of a single time I have ever replied to a post form you where my main agenda, or in fact any agenda at all I was operating under, was to convince YOU of anything.

I’d suggest we’ve reached that point now nozz tbh.

Day Lewin

Just to toss in my tuppenceworth...I've actually met a couple of young women who added to their college income by doing a little sex work.
Not necessarily streetwalking...one did "escort" which was a phone number in an online page, and one did a certain type of BDSM activity for which there is great demand...but not screwing.
Nice money for not too much effort.
Of course they didn't tell their parents - who would have been very old-fashioned about this.
But there's nothing unusual about students not telling their parents everything, and this does not cause mental illness!

And they weren't trafficked and they weren't uneducated. Broke yes, but a lot of students are broke.

I dare say their Mams and Dads would have tut-tutted. But none of the arguments against it appear convincing!

If it was my daughter, I would just be chanting "Durex, Durex! Safety, safety!" and that would be all I had to say.

Clarence Boddiker

Day Lewin wrote: »

How is this different from Miss World and the gruesome Toddler Pageant?

Eh? There's a big big difference between prostitution and a toddler pageant?

Wtf?

Clarence Boddiker

Reject the degenerates. You have the right to let someone know you think they're depraved.

ILoveYourVibes

Get Real wrote: »

I agree. But the article is mostly about the landlord not wanting that on his premises. And as a landlord, he has the choice not to.

Then he needs to word his tenancy agreement to accommodate that wish.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’d suggest we’ve reached that point now nozz tbh.

Which tends to happen when one side of a conversation has an MO of cutting and running, shutting down discourse, and dodging points and questions.

Day Lewin wrote: »

Just to toss in my tuppenceworth...I've actually met a couple of young women who added to their college income by doing a little sex work.

As have I. And they do not fit the narrative Jack wants to sell above of people forced into it by poverty. At least most of the ones I met didn't. I will be honest and admit I knew ONE who very much did, and felt trapped by that poverty and forced by it to do that kind of work. I used to help her out where I could to reduce her reliance on doing the work. I was reminded of it in fact by the Ricky Gervais show "After Life" where he hired a sex worker to come in and wash his house and dishes.

The others however, with a bit of frugal living, could have done college without any second income at all. But they WANTED more income, and did not want college to be an entirely frugal time. So they wanted a second income. But since education did not come easy to them and they had to work hard in college, harder than someone like me who most of it came easy to, they also didn't want to be investing multiple 8 hour shifts in working.

So sex work came as a natural alternative option for consideration. and some of them chose it. Some didn't. They was no force. No feeling of having no alternative. No compulsion. No exploitation. It was all entirely their choice.

They tended to fall into having one or two constant customers though. Not the kind of full time sex work many people imagine where they are on a site like EscortIreland.com advertising to get 4 or 5 different customers a week.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which tends to happen when one side of a conversation has an MO of cutting and running, shutting down discourse, and dodging points and questions.

Not at all, I realised when you said it has never been your intent to convince me of anything, that I was mistaken in the first place to have given you the benefit of the doubt, and that I was in danger of taking you seriously.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And they do not fit the narrative Jack wants to sell above of people forced into it by poverty.

Well of course they don’t. I’ve already addressed this earlier when I pointed out that they are two very different scenarios. I couldn’t care less about the people who are doing anything because they want a bit of excitement in their lives, I do care about anyone who is forced into prostitution out of necessity to survive, as in the migrants in German parks I posted earlier, or those people simply forced into prostitution in order to escape poverty, or people who are exploited. The Belle de Jour types? I couldn’t give less of a fcuk about tbh, contrary to the narrative you’re trying to portray when you appeared to go off the deep end earlier with your “white catholic male” nonsense.

Even then I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were just having a bit of a moment, but no, when you flat out state that you aren’t trying to convince me of anything, I see no reason why I should entertain you as though you’re paying for my time.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not at all, I realised when you said it has never been your intent to convince me of anything, that I was mistaken in the first place to have given you the benefit of the doubt, and that I was in danger of taking you seriously.

Just a latest in a long line excuses you make for dodging and running really. But no, discourse serves many purposes in this world and wishing to change the opinions or minds of the person you are directly talking to is not always the main, only, or even any agenda that has to be in play.

Often it is enough that certain conversations are being had, multiple times, across multiple fora. That is a valid agenda in and of itself. Like in the abortion and marriage referendums for example, it was enough to keep a certain class of person talking as much as possible to allow them to hang themselves. And oh how they did.

You pointed out for example that legalising sex work would not destigmatise it. You are HALF right there. Legalising it ALONE will not achieve that. Legalisation and useful, rather than arbitrary, regulation of it is one step on a road. There are many other equally useful and legitimate steps to take on that road. I have listed some on this thread, others on previous threads, and still more have I not yet listed.

And among the useful steps is to identify loud voices who have biases against sex work and sex workers that they can not justify or defend in any way.... and simply keep them talking so that everyone can see it. And wonderfully there are people who happily wait for you to chalk the outline of a body on the metaphorical pavement so they can obediently go down and lie in it in perfect situ.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do care about anyone who is forced into prostitution out of necessity to survive

As do I, but that is not at all served by the sweeping misrepresentations of sex work as a whole that you are engaged in. In fact misrepresentation of sex work at a whole, like yours, is perhaps even likely to make the people forced into it suffer more than they should.... and people who are in it for legitimate reasons of choice and freedom to suffer unnecessarily too.

I keep saying it, but I will also keep on saying it: Exploitation within any industry is a bad thing. Pretending and declaring an entire industry IS exploitation inherently or by definition is also however a bad thing.

There is no reason to single out sex work for this either, as if exploitation within it is any more heinous or problematic than when it occurs elsewhere. I mentioned Nail Bars earlier for example. It is just as tragic to me that people might be forced, or trafficked, against their will to perform that kind of work either. But I do not work against that kind of horror by pretending Nail Bars or the Nail Care Industry are themselves to be indicted. SO why do this with sex work?

Just like no one appears to be going around pretending that the career of freelance massage is exploitation, there simply is no arguments on offer from you to justify this stance as yet. But the moment genitals are involved, for some reason reason itself goes off the rails for you. You do not seem to be able to explain why. The occasional user who popped in and then out of the thread to comment seem not yet to have been able to explain why either. And freelance massage is an interesting one to use for that question... a question you are STILL dodging and not answering I note once again..... because there is a blurring in the continuum line between the two services around the locus of things like "happy end".

So simply shouting "Nonsense" at comments about middle class single white catholic males does not automatically make it nonsense. Rather, such conclusions are the only ones left available to those of us who are otherwise being refused any substantive explanations. The fact is I can not just declare and assert my positions but argue them too, and argue AGAINST counter positions without simply shouting "nonsense" and taking my ball and going home. Were I not to be able to do that on any given topic I would do what I always do.... stay stumm lest I embarrass myself. YMMV.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Then he needs to word his tenancy agreement to accommodate that wish.

For all we know, he may already have done so.

But do the Gardai normally do raids as a result of tenancy contract violations?