The future of sex work in Ireland - due for debate/review in Dail Eireann

bo0li5eumx12kp

2017 law criminalizing purchase of sexual services in Ireland due for review/renewal, matter to be discussed in Dail Eireann.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WBJTF3B

As I understand it, survey initiated by Helen McEntee by way of Department for Justice.

Law was introduced under Francis Fitzgerald, remained in place under the tenure of Charlie Flanagan, and now Helen Mac having taken that position, is due for review.

A topic that's historically received much opposition from various "factions", let's say.
Much of which is comprised essentially of religious'esque associated organizations so, to be expected.

....

Ludicrous as this comparison may sound, Eamon Ryan is heavily invested in revolutionizing Dublin's cycle infrastructure with a primary agenda being, traffic restructuring, introduction of individual cycle lanes for cyclist safety and sense of well being whilst traversing heavily trafficked roads.

Sex work isn't that different.

It's an industry prone to volatile temperaments and in many respects, needs to be treated with care and attention, given the investment and oversight it requires, not simply regarded as something peripheral, insignificant in the grand infrastructure - cause all it takes is one idiot and next thing BOOM - a horrible tragedy has transpired.

Department of Justice, their goal is to ensure worker safety, preclusion of exploitation and forced labour - and one thing I liked about the 2017 law is that, it brought attention to the matter;

A historically suppressed/ignored practice, suddenly it was cultural topic, televised debates, live radio conversations etc.

Essentially to continue in that vein, that level of attention and investment, not necessarily a continuation of that law itself - but as oppose to "traffic restructuring" (sorely needed) as the Department of Transport is concerned with, a "Cultural restructuring" that government legitimization of such a practice would enable.

....

Naturally with this level state input and oversight, licensure etc, would be an exponentially more effective means of addressing exploitation and malpractice in the trade than the "close your eyes, cover your ears and hope it goes away" tact that's been historically employed.
Neither that nor "stand idly by and let the chips fall where they may"; state investment and active participation to me, can be the only direction that will facilitate true sustainability and safety in the trade.

What a huge historical cultural hurdle that would be to jump, however.

JasonStatham

Should remain criminalized.

EmmetSpiceland

Take her up to Monto, Monto, Monto...

jaxxx

JasonStatham wrote: »

Should remain criminalized.

Ignorance of the highest order. Since this law was introduced, violence against sex workers has increased dramatically. But no, according to you that's ok cos it should remain criminalised. Or were you even aware of that? People, like you, who don't do any sort of research into this kind of thing coming out with blanket opinions based on nothing but what you're spoon fed. The reality is that human trafficking and those that choose sex work (and yes, there are those that do choose to it; and no, they're not all addicted to drugs or riddled with STI's, despite what you bigots believe) are not one in the same thing. Yes they're related, but they are themselves distinct from one another. One involves consent. The other slavery. But there are people that are so stuck in their own ways that they refuse to listen to any that has the audacity to differ from their own "bible".

What's really so different about 2 consenting adults having sex for money vs 2 randomers meeting in a club and having a one night stand?

Eric Cartman

JasonStatham wrote: »

Should remain criminalized.

The seller should be penalised, legalising or softening punishments on prostitutes just encourages human trafficking.

jaxxx

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The seller should be penalised, legalising or softening punishments on prostitutes just encourages human trafficking.

Ok. Where are your facts to base this on? I'm genuinely intrigued as I enjoy reading up on many different types of issues in the world.

Eric Cartman

jaxxx wrote: »

Ok. Where are your facts to base this on? I'm genuinely intrigued as I enjoy reading up on many different types of issues in the world.

https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/

Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers. On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows.

bo0li5eumx12kp

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Take her up to Monto, Monto, Monto...

lol see that was the problem with monto right there.

Insufficient state oversight, lack of regulation, standards, and almost certainly not tax compliant.

Some sex-work/prostitution free for all.... defeats its own purpose, and of course leaves vulnerability for the bottom feeders to creep in and wreak havoc - which as surely as mud flows downhill, they will do.

Coordination - I mean the entire purpose of upmarket society is glamour.

High end clothes, shoes, make up stores, high end nightclubs and venues - it's all glamour.

That's the purpose - gets the people going!.

As a means to what ends?

....

Yeah, getting your rocks off.

So why would the industry put in place specifically to get one's rocks off, be anything less than glamorous?

And left to some exclusively decentralized exploitationists that never went to college, it's bound to be trashy.

Just like monto was.

And all trashy things must come to an end.

#sustainability

bo0li5eumx12kp

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/

These "studies" are typically grotesquely unreliable, highly biased, skewed, whatever you want to call it.

It's like a study conducted by the company that's selling the product, they'll paint it in whatever light suits their own ends the best.

dotsman

Should be perfectly legal and regulated.

Prohibition does not work, nor has it ever worked. Nobody has every been able to successfully argue for its criminalisation. The fact that we only treated the symptoms, but not the cause of the Magdalene Laundries means we are going to be very embarrassed when we explain to our children/grandchildren how we let this happen.

In an ideal society, all those who push for criminalisation should be criminalised themselves. They are the bullies; the oppressors; the right-wing cúnts who get off on other people's misery. They are the ones we want marginalised and ostracised from society, not people who have sex in a different way to "the norm". It is they who represent all that is wrong and evil in society.

It's just sex. The sooner we learn to keep out of other adult's sex lives, the better for everyone.

bo0li5eumx12kp

We'd be on page 6 if this was kept in AH.

Current affairs is to formal for this discussion - it doesn't fit the "culture" around here.

Can we move this back to AH where it was originally posted?

Rodney Bathgate

Are escorts legal here?

Pkiernan

The overwhelming majority of these poor women are being raped daily by multiple punters.

The customers should be charged with rape .
The pimps should be face trafficking and slavery charges.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Are escorts legal here?

It's not a licensured trade no.

i.e. somewhat of a free for all.

It's legal status depends on the whims of a select few but the point being, in its current incarnation, legality is less of a consideration than actual functionality of practice on a whole.

A throwback to "monto" is not the way forward.

The oppressors like to keep it in the gutter though - they feel less threatened by it there.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Pkiernan wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of these poor women are being raped daily by multiple punters.

The customers should be charged with rape .
The pimps should be face trafficking and slavery charges.

i.e. volatile/temperamental trade.

Some people need to believe what's in the quotation box.

The reality to them is just too infuriating to acknowledge.

So these myths get conjured up, whilst exploitationists stand to profit amidst the confusion.
The latter is where the Irish policy makers are accountable.

I don't see decriminalization in and of itself making much difference.

Criminalize, don't criminalize - the river runs its course regardless.

The cultural impact of state recognition of this as legitimate work however, subsequent facilitation, codes of practice, etc etc - that's the thermonuclear device under historical oppression.



Every corner of society it would reach.
Every sensibility it would touch.

What two consenting adults get up to is no business of the State.

Man with broke phone

Pkiernan wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of these poor women are being raped daily by multiple punters.

The customers should be charged with rape .
The pimps should be face trafficking and slavery charges.

Woah, just wow. Should probably arrest all the people watching women being raped in porn too. One time I seen a man leave a fancy restaurant with his fiance, they were very touchy feely looked like they were going home to initiate rape. I did nothing to stop it. Im just as bad as the human traffickers.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Deleted User wrote: »

What two consenting adults get up to is no business of the State.

I get your point but technically, if they're operating a business, it is.

I'm not contradicting your sentiments on the matter, I'm merely highlighting that an increase in state intervention as a means of facilitation, is what needs to happen;

1) it needs to happen to address the trafficking/coercion concern

2) it needs to happen to ameliorate a hypocritical national mindset gone skew ways

Man with broke phone

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

I get your point but technically, if they're operating a business, it is.

I'm not contradicting your sentiments on the matter, I'm merely highlighting that an increase in state intervention as a means of facilitation, is what needs to happen;

1) it needs to happen to address the trafficking/coercion concern

2) it needs to happen to ameliorate a hypocritical national mindset gone skew ways

How about its legal but only for women who have been living in their county for the last five years.

Bards

If kids are going to be allowed to change their gender at 16 then sex between consenting adults is not a crime and should not be criminalised

bo0li5eumx12kp

Man with broke phone wrote: »

How about its legal but only for women who have been living in their county for the last five years.

That means gals who want to get into it, given illegality of that setup - would be forced to turn to pimps and traffickers to begin work.

KiKi III

Bards wrote: »

If kids are going to be allowed to change their gender at 16 then sex between consenting adults is not a crime and should not be criminalised

Sex between consenting adults is just called sex.

Prostitution is not the same thing.

CrabRevolution

Man with broke phone wrote: »

Woah, just wow. Should probably arrest all the people watching women being raped in porn too. One time I seen a man leave a fancy restaurant with his fiance, they were very touchy feely looked like they were going home to initiate rape. I did nothing to stop it. Im just as bad as the human traffickers.

The last thread on this topic had a poster with a similar style. They provided no information or argument other than employing very emotive and graphic language about involuntary prostitutes. Whenever they were refuted or given a counterpoint their only retort was to effectively repost what they'd previously said but this time include even more graphic words.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Bards wrote: »

If kids are going to be allowed to change their gender at 16 then sex between consenting adults is not a crime and should not be criminalised

I agree, but contend that what it requires is not decriminalization exclusively, but additionally, state input.

I'm not talking about putting it up in lights and on the corner of every street.

It's always going to be clandestined as, it's hardly a spectator sport.

Just like any other business has government measures and protocols, standards to meet and codes upon which to practice.

StringerBell

Legalise it, regulate it, tax it.

i_surge

KiKi III wrote: »

Sex between consenting adults is just called sex.

Prostitution is not the same thing.

You need to qualify your statement for accuracy. Most of it consenting as you well know.

I guess listen to the people involved. Most in that industry want it legitimised for their safety.

There is trafficking but it is a side issue, your approach may help them but harms the majority to help the minority, tricky to find the right balance.

Status quo doesn't work for many reasons.

Kylta

Deleted User wrote: »

What two consenting adults get up to is no business of the State.

Technically it is if money changes hand and the state doesn't get its revenue.

My opinion it should've been legalised years ago, it offers the sellers a certain amount of protection in regards to assaults and safe sex practises. It will also give the buyer the knowledge that his transaction is getting done in a safe place. And wants the state recieves its taxes the these places can become legalised and under the protection of the state in regards to security measures.
I would rather see a legalised form of prostitution that whats happening with the sex trade where women/men mostly children are being force to sell their bodies to make some scumbag rich

i_surge

StringerBell wrote: »

Legalise it, regulate it, tax it.

Yes maybe but close it down right now and put them on a covid payment for the public good.

Brushing the activity under carpet is a disaster for virus containment.

Pkiernan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What two consenting adults get up to is no business of the State.

Trafficked women have no choice but to consent.

bo0li5eumx12kp

KiKi III wrote: »

Sex between consenting adults is just called sex.

Prostitution is not the same thing.

.....

Is this where the lay persons understanding falls down?

....

Quid-pro-quo fren.

Quid-pro-quo.

Perhaps slightly off topic but, every try and get laid without offering something in return?
Companionships, security, status (aka popularity, depending on the environment) etc?

The hustle never ends just, some gals (refer to themselves as "feminists"), they despise the fact that their leverage can be alleviated, and sex work enables said alleviation.

....

Thus my general contention that legitimization is a bombshell to conventional societal framework.

Forces it to rethink itself, simply the fact that such a model would be endorsed by the higher powers.

jaxxx

Pkiernan wrote: »

Trafficked women have no choice but to consent.

.. .. .. I've read some ignorance in this thread put this takes the f*cking biscuit. It's disgustingly offensive to victims of human trafficking. That is LITERALLY not consent.

i_surge

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

.....

Is this where the lay persons understanding falls down?

....

Quid-pro-quo fren.

Quid-pro-quo.

Perhaps slightly off topic but, every try and get laid without offering something in return?
Companionships, security, status (aka popularity, depending on the environment) etc?

The hustle never ends just, some gals (refer to themselves as "feminists"), they despise the fact that their leverage can be alleviated, and sex work enables said alleviation.

....

Thus my general contention that legitimization is a bombshell to conventional societal framework.

Forces it to rethink itself, simply the fact that such a model would be endorsed by the higher powers.

That line is getting further blurred by many under 25 effectively pimping themselves online, looking for sugar daddy type arrangements quite openly and selling their image, showcasing their lives in detail making stalking easy and leaving themselves open to meeting some real freaks.

At least the pros are streetwise

bo0li5eumx12kp

StringerBell wrote: »

Legalise it, regulate it, tax it.

Tax is probably a large issue as well.

I mean if it's being taxed, money goes back in to address standards also.

A large part of state regulation will be a function of taxation.

Now maybe some working gals wouldn't be thrilled about the initial prospect of that but, with accordant improvement in environment, standards, accessibility, and quality of working life - in the long term it would be tax dollards well spent.

And I mean, it's gonna happen according to income brackets also.

B.A._Baracus

Pkiernan wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of these poor women are being raped daily by multiple punters.

The customers should be charged with rape .
The pimps should be face trafficking and slavery charges.

Geez.
Hey, step outside your bubble. Open your eyes and ears more.

jaxxx

Pkiernan wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of these poor women are being raped daily by multiple punters.

The customers should be charged with rape .
The pimps should be face trafficking and slavery charges.

And you know that how? Cos you believe everything the anti side tell you?

Kylta

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

.....

Is this where the lay persons understanding falls down?

....

Quid-pro-quo fren.

Quid-pro-quo.

Perhaps slightly off topic but, every try and get laid without offering something in return?
Companionships, security, status (aka popularity, depending on the environment) etc?

I would disagree with this. Its like getting married guarantees you sex every night, its doesn't besides you marry for love (supposely) you marry a person you love and that loves you and both of you decide the outcome of your lives kids/house/holidays etc. (Will digress to say this anybody man or woman who aren't treated as equal in a relationship should get the fu¢k out of it, ,sorry for the digression).

Anybody Fu¢king a prostitute and thinking the prostitute is delight that she's getting the FU©KING of her life is mistaken. Its a job to her ifs she's doing it for herself, if she's doing against her will for some scumbag to earn form her misery. Well then she's being raped again and again and it doesn't really matter whether she's smiling or not for the fu¢king punter or not. Or whether thinks he's giving the prostitute the time of her live. This trade should've been legalised years ago, but then again I do wonder with some things in this country were still in the dark ages

coinop

One thing I've noticed in recent years is how the term "sex worker" has pervaded discussion of this topic. In my day we called them whores. The modern feminist notion of letting young women degrade themselves by selling naked pictures of themselves online will come to bite them in the ass. Imagine explaining to your child in 10 years time why mammy is spreading her ass cheeks on the internet. But then again, I don't think these women are the type who ever plan on having kids anyway. A genetic dead end.

Man with broke phone

They legalized fruit picking and this lead to people being trafficked into laois to puck fruit in fairness.

tigger123

This thread is really taking some strange turns.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Man with broke phone wrote: »

They legalized fruit picking and this lead to people being trafficked into laois to puck fruit in fairness.

"Fruit picking"?

.....

Is this some kind of new hip-hop slang?

Kylta

Ok, their whores, prostitutes, etc.but can anybody say why it should not be legalised?
If the answer is anything to do with the bible or religion please don't answer just go to church and pray for their wretched souls as they burn forever in hell.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Kylta wrote: »

I would disagree with this. Its like getting married guarantees you sex every night, its doesn't

As to marriage (not the topic at hand) it's an institution - it's part of the trade off.
Not, my idea of a good time but, I've seen many a dude do much better married than single.

besides you marry for love (supposely) you marry a person you love and that loves you and both of you decide the outcome of your lives kids/house/holidays etc. (Will digress to say this anybody man or woman who aren't treated as equal in a relationship should get the fu¢k out of it, ,sorry for the digression).

Accessibility to sex work may well preclude an unhappy marriage, as there may be less obligation on a man to enter said institution for the provision of sex - so I guess we're on the same page there.

Additionally, if a woman can self provide by way of sex work, she may feel less compelled to rely on a man for financial provision.

Anybody Fu¢king a prostitute and thinking the prostitute is delight that she's getting the FU©KING of her life is mistaken. Its a job to her ifs she's doing it for herself,

Probably not the time, place, thread or forum to discuss this topic.

if she's doing against her will for some scumbag to earn form her misery. Well then she's being raped again and again and it doesn't really matter whether she's smiling or not for the fu¢king punter or not. Or whether thinks he's giving the prostitute the time of her live. This trade should've been legalised years ago, but then again I do wonder with some things in this country were still in the dark ages

The purpose of bill revision is to address the potential for this heinous circumstance.

The historical interpretation of "against her will" is poorly understood.
Coercion, vs needing the money etc.

Again, increase in work environment standards would go a ways to addressing any unhappiness associated with an oppressive setup.

IAMAMORON

Hopefully someday one brave politician will make it genuinely part of their agenda and champion its' decriminalization. It needs to be done. Too many workers face extortion and manipulation by evil people who have no conscience about abusing workers and making money off their backs.

The argument that has come in since the last law change is gormless and really defeats itself. The only way to protect workers and ensure their wellbeing is to legalize it. By criminalizing workers you just force them further underground.

It is sickening that groups who are anti-prostitution are satisfied to risk the lives and welfares of workers by forcing them to work under current legal conditions. It is a shame that they are prepared to use workers as guinea pigs for their own moral agendas.

As long as workers are forced to act in an illegal environment they will never be able to receive the rights and privileges they deserve. Sex work is not like any other job, it needs to be regulated and protected, by everyone.

Kylta

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

As to marriage (not the topic at hand) it's an institution - it's part of the trade off.
Not, my idea of a good time but, I've seen many a dude do much better married than single.

Although not the topic, who said marriage was an institution, is not its a bit of paper, thats all. And help me out here are you saying the dude could only get his hole cause he was married. I thought people got married for love?

Eric Cartman

coinop wrote: »

One thing I've noticed in recent years is how the term "sex worker" has pervaded discussion of this topic. In my day we called them whores. The modern feminist notion of letting young women degrade themselves by selling naked pictures of themselves online will come to bite them in the ass. Imagine explaining to your child in 10 years time why mammy is spreading her ass cheeks on the internet. But then again, I don't think these women are the type who ever plan on having kids anyway. A genetic dead end.

While I think youve put it a lot more harshly than I would , the normalisation of young women selling pictures of themselves online is disgusting and should return to heing shameful

bo0li5eumx12kp

Kylta wrote: »

Although not the topic, who said marriage was an institution, is not its a bit of paper, thats all. And help me out here are you saying the dude could only get his hole cause he was married. I thought people got married for love?

There's complexity behind marriage which is entirely off the topic of this thread.

Many many married men use sex workers all the time.

I suspect in many cases it may even save their marriage.

....

Put it this way, if dudes could get laid with greater ease and less complexity and didn't have to lie about how often they've got laid without money ("oh yeah bro, I've slept with...... 64 girls - I swear!!"), do you think even a fraction of them would choose to enter a long term committed relationship?

bo0li5eumx12kp

This is the collective that will likely dictate the outcome of this review.

I don't see Helen Mac.

I was hoping her younger blood might lend a more open minded perspective to the matter.

They seem to be missing someone else also,



....

Left to them, aw hell, this "review" is just a formality.

This plan is fucked - it's been fucked since jump street.

I see Fitzgerald and Madigan (Irelands own Jilly Cooper - the irony) down in front.

In what universe would their likes ever endorse a situation where their husbands could possibly stop for a coffee and some muff on their way home from work - let alone actively enable it?

....

You know what - I thought sex work investment might cause a cultural shift.

....

It's beginning to dawn on me that, the cultural shift will have to precede the alleviation of oppression and policies made by ministers desperately clinging onto their identity through the dregs of last centuries mindset.

Kylta

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

There's complexity behind marriage which is entirely off the topic of this thread.

....

Put it this way, if dudes could get laid with greater ease and less complexity and didn't have to lie about how often they've got laid without money ("oh yeah bro, I've slept with...... 64 girls - I swear!!"), do you think even a fraction of them would choose to enter a long term committed relationship?

Indulged me please. Are you saying all men are the same?

bo0li5eumx12kp

Kylta wrote: »

Indulged me please.

Nuh, sorry - too off topic.

IAMAMORON

I would be interested in finding out what current TD's are involved. For the sake of the workers I sincerely hope it is not some head nodding committee who are going to meander through the legislation, change nothing and ask their SPAD's to word a concise and articulate paragraph about their " approach to the problems and issues faced" ... this is probably how it will go.

I also don't think a panel made entirely up of women is appropriate either. More often then not they do not condone the practice of people paying for sex. The matter gets shamed and the entire attitude is focused on penalising the industry via moral dilemma. As per usual this comes at the expense of the workers.

Most politicians don't want to deal with it, any that do are always adopting the high moral ground, they are more concerned with their reputation then they are concerned with protecting workers.

bo0li5eumx12kp

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I would be interested in finding out what current TD's are involved. For the sake of the workers I sincerely hope it is not some head nodding committee who are going to meander through the legislation, change nothing and ask their SPAD's to word a concise and articulate paragraph about their " approach to the problems and issues faced" ... this is probably how it will go.

I also don't think a panel made entirely up of women is appropriate either. More often then not they do not condone the practice of people paying for sex. The matter gets shamed and the entire attitude is focused on penalising the industry via moral dilemma. As per usual this comes at the expense of the workers.

Most politicians don't want to deal with it, any that do are always adopting the high moral ground, they are more concerned with their reputation then they are concerned with protecting workers.

Being minister for justice, you'd imagine Helen Mac would have the final say.

Usual suspect feminists will have to get their word in, Madegan, Fitzgerald, Foley, the list goes on.
Charlie Flannigan might be left mumbling in the back.

JRE perspective - 3:45 for question, "what would happen if sex work became legal" - some nice view points.

"....organized crime, that's the real problem...."

Best comment so far.

So this lies firmly in Helen Mac's area - and it's true. If organized crime were stomped out and the state assumed responsibility, taking the place of the historical pimp role (except without the violence and extortion) i.e. the sex workers well being, chauffeuring the gals about the Island, booking hotels, ensuring accommodation was on par etc.

That'd be many many problems solved right there in one clean sweep.

Cause you see problem is, the river will run a course either way.
So either the state steps up, assumes authority, does things competently.

Or they bitch out under a holier-than-thou and PC hierarchical agenda (but really cause the entire panel is women who are catty enough to actually instate compromised policy out of morbid self indulgence and resentment for sex workers), then after go write some more Jilly Cooper'esque "racy" novels (yeah Josepha, that means you), about women who basically use sexual leverage in the work place to attain career goals (so not sex for money, sex for career, which means MORE money....) - all whilst allowing the bottom-feeder/maggot criminal element to sinks their hooks into the vulnerability of an unregulated trade.

The irony (/hypocrisy).