Call to legalese brothels in Ireland.

SV

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People are going to think you're my alternate account

Change your name!!

Beruthiel said that people would think I was you when I changed it :P

I'll get it changed to something else :pac:

liah

A_SN wrote: »

Has anyone else seen that episode of that show with Stephen Fry where he visited a legal brothel in Nevada?

Thought that was Louis Theroux? Good episode, anyway.

Anyway, for the naysayers, let's put it as simply as possible with a pros and cons list.

PROS OF LEGALIZATION:
-Health care
-A safe environment from which to practice
-Extra revenue that the country sorely needs
-Reduced and/or more highly monitored violence and gang related activity
-Perhaps a less negative image of the women who choose to be involved
-Less chance of these women being raped or stolen from
-Ability for the women to contact the police in the instance of things going wrong and not be ignored due to their profession

CONS OF LEGALIZATION:
-It's "morally wrong"
-There will still be gang related activity in association, even if it is lessened
-It is considered "bought rape," even if it is a consensual agreement between two adults (I don't get this argument, that's like saying a one night stand is rape, since prostitution is technically just paying for a one nighter)

I legitimately cannot think of any more cons for it. If you have any more than those listed, let me know and I'll edit my post.

Anyway, the main argument I'm hearing in this thread is that legalization won't stop the gang-related violence or ill will against the prostitutes. Right. Obviously it's not going to stop. It never, ever will, just like crime related to anything else in the world won't. But prohibiting it won't stop it either. Prostitution is going to happen whether you like it or not-- it's the world's oldest profession and despite thousands of years of policing and suppression and prohibition it still exists and the way it is done will not change no matter how much you police it. You can deny that til the cows come home but it will never change.
At least if it is legalized and controlled the damage done to the women involved is greatly lessened. They have the opportunity for health care and if something bad does happen to them they have the ability to go to the police and report an incident-- an ability they currently do not have which is direly needed. This fact alone will decrease the gang-related activity and violence et al, especially as the criminals get caught.

For those of you going against prostitution under the guise of women's rights and being against exploitation, you make no sense. You'd rather them not have the ability to report to the police when they are injured or raped by way of their profession? And you think that the danger of the business will keep them out of it? Obviously it hasn't, for thousands of years, why would it now..?

Cop the hell on. For the sheer safety of the women involved, REGARDLESS of the reasons why they're involved, it needs to be legalized. There is no other solution.

A_SN

liah wrote: »

Anyway, the main argument I'm hearing in this thread is that legalization won't stop the gang-related violence or ill will against the prostitutes. Right. Obviously it's not going to stop. It never, ever will, just like crime related to anything else in the world won't.

I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but I strongly doubt that prostitution inherently involves gang crime, that is as long as legal brothels are concerned. I don't think that sufficient levels of legal protection, law enforcement and oversight can fail to make it a profession just as nice and clean as cashier at McDonald's.

liah

A_SN wrote: »

I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but I strongly doubt that prostitution inherently involves gang crime, that is as long as legal brothels are concerned. I don't think that sufficient levels of legal protection, law enforcement and oversight can fail to make it a profession just as nice and clean as cashier at McDonald's.

I know that, but that's the argument Jakkass has been using-- that prostitution shouldn't be legal because even when it is it still involves gang-related activity no matter how much it's lessened. :pac: Ain't my argument 'cuz it sure as bloody hell doesn't make any sense!

It won't ever be as nice and clean a profession as a career at McDonald's, I don't think. But it'd be roughly on the same level as the porn industry. Of course it'll still be that little bit seedy, there's still people doing it under the table, and people are still getting paid to have sex (wait, why is porn legal here and prostitution not, porn's the same thing but in front of a camera! hypocrites :pac:) but at least the ill effects would be lessened and the women would have a chance to look after themselves and report violence and rape to the police, doing the double job of a) being safer to the individual and b) benefiting the profession as a whole by taking hits to those who commit rape or violence.

A_SN

liah wrote: »

But it'd be roughly on the same level as the porn industry.

That I agree with!

liah wrote: »

(wait, why is porn legal here and prostitution not, porn's the same thing but in front of a camera! hypocrites :pac:)

I've been wondering for a while. I really don't have any idea... When you think about it, if you do a prostitute on camera with the intent to distribute, it probably makes it legal . Unless maybe there's more paperwork involved with porno...

liah

A_SN wrote: »

I've been wondering for a while. I really don't have any idea... When you think about it, if you do a prostitute on camera with the intent to distribute, it probably makes it legal . Unless maybe there's more paperwork involved with porno...

Could be more paperwork involved, but sure wouldn't legalizing prostitution add paperwork to the mix and help things along?

Like, ideally, prostitution should go as follows:

1) Women have the ability to turn away who they please based even just on visual appearance, much like a publican turns away knackers.
2) When patrons come to the brothel they need to provide an item of ID and perhaps sign some kind of disclaimer and verification that they won't start shít. Gives them ground with the police in the event of an incident.
3) If things go awry, there should be some emergency button or something to call the authorities.
4) Both the patrons and the women should have a sign in/out system to keep track of whereabouts and keep a decent timeline, as well as a buzzer system to enter the brothel.
5) Half should be paid up front imo. Insurance like.
6) Women should be required to have a clean bill of health before going to work and get checkups weekly or bi-weekly, as well as be provided with contraception at all times.

Even just those 6 things alone would do justice to the girls and make the profession a lot safer to participate in.

A_SN

liah wrote: »

Could be more paperwork involved, but sure wouldn't legalizing prostitution add paperwork to the mix and help things along?

Like, ideally, prostitution should go as follows:

1) Women have the ability to turn away who they please based even just on visual appearance, much like a publican turns away knackers.
2) When patrons come to the brothel they need to provide an item of ID and perhaps sign some kind of disclaimer and verification that they won't start shít. Gives them ground with the police in the event of an incident.
3) If things go awry, there should be some emergency button or something to call the authorities.
4) Both the patrons and the women should have a sign in/out system to keep track of whereabouts and keep a decent timeline, as well as a buzzer system to enter the brothel.
5) Half should be paid up front imo. Insurance like.
6) Women should be required to have a clean bill of health before going to work and get checkups weekly or bi-weekly, as well as be provided with contraception at all times.

Even just those 6 things alone would do justice to the girls and make the profession a lot safer to participate in.

You should really see the bit with Stephen Fry I mentionned, it really goes in details and it's 30 times stricter and safer than what you're suggesting.

liah

I saw one remarkably like it with Louis Theroux, the way you described it was pretty much identical to a show he did about a brothel in Nevada which I watched and took a lot out of. Was really well done, but sure I like Louis Theroux anyway (also adore Stephen Fry, which is why I'm surprised he's done something I haven't heard of!).

A_SN

liah wrote: »

I saw one remarkably like it with Louis Theroux, the way you described it was pretty much identical to a show he did about a brothel in Nevada which I watched and took a lot out of. Was really well done, but sure I like Louis Theroux anyway (also adore Stephen Fry, which is why I'm surprised he's done something I haven't heard of!).

Yeah, look up Stephen Fry in America, it's a show in which he visits the 50 states and even for someone like me who knows the USA in general pretty well it's really insightful and not going through the obvious stuff at all.

Ha actually if you google it one of the first results is the very video about the brothel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGi431LjHB8

liah

Ah sound, I'll give it a look then, love Stephen Fry.

I recommend you check out the one Louis Theroux does, too, it's fairly extensive. Think it's only an hour long or so. One of his series. Was quite well done and funny.

..Might watch that again now actually.

Sam Vimes

liah wrote: »

-It's "morally wrong"

no no no no no that's not the reason at all. :rolleyes: Between you, me and the wall it's actually the only reason anyone wants it banned but you can't say that because that's not going to convince anyone

liah wrote: »

-It is considered "bought rape," even if it is a consensual agreement between two adults (I don't get this argument, that's like saying a one night stand is rape, since prostitution is technically just paying for a one nighter)

It's bought rape in the same way that work is bought slavery, ie it's not

liah wrote: »

Prostitution is going to happen whether you like it or not-- it's the world's oldest profession and despite thousands of years of policing and suppression and prohibition it still exists and the way it is done will not change no matter how much you police it.

This argument only works if you're talking about something that is not inherently wrong. People use it for abortion but the other side doesn't accept it because they disagree with abortion for the same reasons they disagree with murder and no one would say "murder is going to happen whether you like it or not" and suggest it should be legal. They think abortion is inherently wrong just like murder is and should not be condoned in law. The desire to ban prostitution has very little to do with the possible risks surrounding it, he wants prostitution to be illegal because he thinks it's inherently wrong, end of story.

Everything in life has a certain risk involved with it so we do our best to mitigate that risk such as enforcing speed limits on the road, stopping drink driving and making sure everyone's passed a test. You never hear anyone calling for something to be banned altogether........unless they already think it's wrong in itself, when the risks suddenly become completely unmanageable and the only way to keep us safe is to ban it. Those who point out that banning it actually increases those risks are ignored and there are no calls to ban things with with far greater risks involved because the desire to ban it has nothing to do with the risks. They are just being used as excuses to convince the rest of us


Tell me Jakkass, would you agree with the statement: "prostitution should be illegal partly because it should not be condoned in law"?

liah

Just been reading up a little more on the subject of Sweden since Jakkass is touting it around so much.

Technically, selling sex services is legal in Sweden. It's the purchasing that's illegal.

Which actually makes sense as to why it's decreasing-- if the people buying sex rather than the people selling are punished, then logically the numbers of buying will go down for fear of being punished and sent to jail-- which works an awful lot better than just locking up the prostitutes as there will always be a never-ending supply of them.

Interestingly, though, Sweden is known for its high rape statistics. It is consistently reported as the highest count in Europe. Wonder if there's any correlation?

Regardless, I don't think it is the case that prostitution is decreasing; as others have mentioned it is probably just moving further and further underground and the authorities are hesitant to dig that deep.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

no no no no no that's not the reason at all. :rolleyes: Between you, me and the wall it's actually the only reason anyone wants it banned but you can't say that because that's not going to convince anyone

I consider prostitution harmful, hence why I think it should be illegal. End of.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The desire to ban prostitution has very little to do with the possible risks surrounding it, he wants prostitution to be illegal because he thinks it's inherently wrong, end of story.

Again, ridiculous. I've provided evidence as to why criminalisation is more effective. You have provided nothing but mere speculation.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Everything in life has a certain risk involved with it so we do our best to mitigate that risk such as enforcing speed limits on the road, stopping drink driving and making sure everyone's passed a test.

The risks involved in prostitution just happen to be high.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You never hear anyone calling for something to be banned altogether........unless they already think it's wrong in itself

I think it is wrong, but when you think that it is wrong that would neccitate not going to a prostitute yourself.

I think it is harmful, which is why I support prohibition.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

when the risks suddenly become completely unmanageable and the only way to keep us safe is to ban it. Those who point out that banning it actually increases those risks are ignored and there are no calls to ban things with with far greater risks involved because the desire to ban it has nothing to do with the risks. They are just being used as excuses to convince the rest of us

Yes, it is. Minimising the trade is better than maximising it to prevent people from being coerced into prostitution. That's why the Swedish plan works far better than the Dutch one. You and others have denied this even when the facts are presented to you.

It's nothing to do with excuses. The simple fact is the Swedish model of prohibition works better than the Dutch model of legalisation.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Tell me Jakkass, would you agree with the statement: "prostitution should be illegal partly because it should not be condoned in law"?

There is always the element in a democracy that the law should reflect the will of the people. That would be a minor motivation to come after the harm principle. It's currently not safe to legalise prostitution, hence why we should try to minimise it.

liah

Conveniently ignoring the posts and points therein that I've made. Go figure.

Please provide a good rebuttal to the pros/cons list and also make note of Sweden's absurdly high rape rate if you're going to tout it around as a beacon of safety.

Sure might be a good idea to watch the Stephen Fry and Louis Theroux documentaries on the subject matter while you're at it.

Bongo1916

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A leading academic today called for prostitution to be decriminalised to protect women forced to work in the sex industry.

I think that this would be a great idea, it would give the Government the much needed extra revenue and would also take heaps of sluts off the live register.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/ireland/call-to-decriminalise-prostitution-in-ireland-415356.html

They should certainly legalise dwarf brothels.

philologos

liah: Dealing with all your posts is subject to when I have time. I do not have to respond to your posts, but I will get around to it when I get time. Okay? I find it rather rich that you call me out for ignoring you when I just come online, and respond to a single post.I will respond to some more later (i.e please don't be so demanding)

TheInquisitor

Jakkass wrote: »

I consider prostitution harmful, hence why I think it should be illegal. End of.



Again, ridiculous. I've provided evidence as to why criminalisation is more effective. You have provided nothing but mere speculation.



The risks involved in prostitution just happen to be high.



I think it is wrong, but when you think that it is wrong that would neccitate not going to a prostitute yourself.

I think it is harmful, which is why I support prohibition.



Yes, it is. Minimising the trade is better than maximising it to prevent people from being coerced into prostitution. That's why the Swedish plan works far better than the Dutch one. You and others have denied this even when the facts are presented to you.

It's nothing to do with excuses. The simple fact is the Swedish model of prohibition works better than the Dutch model of legalisation.



There is always the element in a democracy that the law should reflect the will of the people. That would be a minor motivation to come after the harm principle. It's currently not safe to legalise prostitution, hence why we should try to minimise it.

Criminilisation is not more effective at all. The last few times i've heard of prostitutes being caught they were not given prison sentences nor were the men that were with them, in fact the only fine was, the money that they had in their possession was taken off them.

Prostitution is in the same league as drugs. Criminals make fortunes and there is gang warfare between rival groups. If we look at what happened when alcohol was prohited in america in the early 20th century we can clearly see that making something illegal is the worst possible thing you can do . How many hundreds if not thousands of murders happened because of rival gangs fighting eachother for the money associated with illegal alcohol.

Literally the worst thing the country could do to fight pimps and drug dealers would be to legalise all drugs and prostitution, bring it out into the open with the country making the profits and using the money to offset any increase in problems. At the very least it will immediately get rid of the dozens of gang related deaths every year.

America has being fighting prostitution and drugs for the guts of 40 years, and to what end? Drugs and prostitution are more rampant now than ever and they also cost the US government billions upon billions in the fight every year. With less garda resources being devoted to fighting drugs and prostitution and more time for other more needy problems the country would be a much safer place.

liah

It's not so much that; it's just odd that you're replying to a post that addresses my original post without just.. addressing the original post. :pac:

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I consider prostitution harmful, hence why I think it should be illegal. End of.

Harmful because of the surrounding risks or harmful in itself?

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, ridiculous. I've provided evidence as to why criminalisation is more effective. You have provided nothing but mere speculation.

You have given one inconclusive and disputed example of how there appears to have been some reduction in one country with a very different culture to most others. That's not proof that prohibition works, especially since you insist legalisation must be 100% effective before it's considered to have worked. I've given the whole of human history where prohibition has never worked to the extent that you insist legalisation must. That is not speculation

Jakkass wrote: »

The risks involved in prostitution just happen to be high.

Exactly, they just happen to be high. The risks of driving are extremely high, thousands are killed or maimed every year in this country alone but you don't think it should be illegal. You said earlier that I'm not comparing like with like there and you're right. The difference is that you don't see anything wrong with driving in itself but you do think prostitution is wrong in itself

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, it is. Minimising the trade is better than maximising it to prevent people from being coerced into prostitution.

This is it Jakkass. You see something wrong with that even before anything else is considered. You can keep telling us that your objection is because of the risks surrounding it but the fact remains you don't want prostitution to happen at all because it's "detrimental to society"

You didn't answer me btw: would you agree with the statement "prostitution should be illegal partly because it should not be condoned in law"

Sam Vimes

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Literally the worst thing the country could do to fight pimps and drug dealers would be to legalise all drugs.

He's not going to accept that. He has a whole load of excuses to hide the fact that he just doesn't like drugs too. The same with gay marriage. It would be "detrimental to society" without ever defining detrimental or society

JackieT

liah wrote: »

Just been reading up a little more on the subject of Sweden since Jakkass is touting it around so much.

Technically, selling sex services is legal in Sweden. It's the purchasing that's illegal.

Which actually makes sense as to why it's decreasing-- if the people buying sex rather than the people selling are punished, then logically the numbers of buying will go down for fear of being punished and sent to jail-- which works an awful lot better than just locking up the prostitutes as there will always be a never-ending supply of them.

Interestingly, though, Sweden is known for its high rape statistics. It is consistently reported as the highest count in Europe. Wonder if there's any correlation?

Regardless, I don't think it is the case that prostitution is decreasing; as others have mentioned it is probably just moving further and further underground and the authorities are hesitant to dig that deep.

If you get caught visiting a prostitute in sweden, you may get fined but you're not gonna get sent to jail.

With the introduction of the new law, street prostitution all but disappeared, but it was never that big of an issue anyways. Sweden is really fcekin cold, you'd freeze your tits off if you had to stand in a street corner all dollled up in a miniskirt for hours waiting for the odd customer.

i'd imagine anyone who knows how to google for escorts in sweden wouldn't have much trouble finding one on the interwebulator.

The definition of rape is a helluva lot wider in sweden than in most other countries, which would go some way to explain the abnormal high level of reported rape there, also i'd be very suspicious of statistics proving that rape is so much more frequent there compared to the other nordic countries. Sweden is really a safe enough country, it's not like you're gonna get sexually assaulted the moment you set foot on swedish soil.

Sam Vimes

JackieT wrote: »

With the introduction of the new law, street prostitution all but disappeared, but it was never that big of an issue anyways. Sweden is really fcekin cold, you'd freeze your tits off if you had to stand in a street corner all dollled up in a miniskirt for hours waiting for the odd customer.

This is true. Even homeless people are rare because if they sleep outside they'll die. There are people busking and sometimes begging in the metro stations but it's nothing like here. The lowest I remember it getting last winter was -14. The climate alone means the prostitution industry would literally have to be behind closed doors

Sweden definitely is a safe country, much safer than here because of the whole culture, not because of the prostitution laws

liah

Climate is actually a pretty fair way of explaining it actually.

Reckon most of it would be done via the internet then so? It is a fairly tech-savvy country, after all.

Just typing in "sweden escort" turned up 2,150,000 results. Now take away like, a million of those for news articles and the like. How many of those do you think are simply masquerading as escorts and are actually sex services...? The second link that came up for me-- Escort Wanda-- was very, VERY blatantly a sex service. Not even going to bother looking at the rest. I reckon you could find at least the, what was it, 746? active prostitutes that Jakkass quoted, and then some.

I doubt Sweden has less of an issue with prostitution than everywhere else; I just imagine it's a lot more rampant behind doors as opposed to street corners.

TheInquisitor

liah wrote: »

Climate is actually a pretty fair way of explaining it actually.

Reckon most of it would be done via the internet then so? It is a fairly tech-savvy country, after all.

Just typing in "sweden escort" turned up 2,150,000 results. Now take away like, a million of those for news articles and the like. How many of those do you think are simply masquerading as escorts and are actually sex services...?

I doubt Sweden has less of an issue with prostitution than everywhere else; I just imagine it's a lot more rampant behind doors as opposed to street corners.

To be honest , we don't see much prostitutes on street corners in Ireland. Its also 8/10 times done behind revolving closed doors

JackieT

liah wrote: »

I doubt Sweden has less of an issue with prostitution than everywhere else; I just imagine it's a lot more rampant behind doors as opposed to street corners.

Yea.. I don't think the new law did much to change things in practice. Sure, swedish politicians are hailing it as a smashing success, but I reckon that's mostly populist pandering to the sizeable feminist faction over there.

Bottle_of_Smoke

liah wrote: »

6) Women should be required to have a clean bill of health before going to work and get checkups weekly or bi-weekly, as well as be provided with contraception at all times.

Due to the nature of sexually transmitted infections this would be pointless. They take a while to show up for tests(HIV, Hep, bacterial infections) They go into dormancy(herpes/warts) And bear in mind if you don't have a doctor at the brothel you have to wait a while to get results analysed

I'd be worried some sort of "our bitches are tested weekly" regulation would give a false sense of security to clients. Use a condom and you're protected against most but some just can't be stopped.

liah

It would still be better than nothing, no? The same level of safety as your average non-prostitution sex scenario with a non-longterm partner.

TheInquisitor

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Due to the nature of sexually transmitted infections this would be pointless. They take a while to show up for tests(HIV, Hep, bacterial infections) They go into dormancy(herpes/warts) And bear in mind if you don't have a doctor at the brothel you have to wait a while to get results analysed

I'd be worried some sort of "our bitches are tested weekly" regulation would give a false sense of security to clients. Use a condom and you're protected against most but some just can't be stopped.

Well that would be the point of legalising prostitution, to get rid of the pimps so there would be none of that crap. Government run brothels, where prostitutes can stay safe, be looked after and taxed.

Regarding Prostitution in Nevada

Since 1986, when mandatory testing began, not a single brothel prostitute has ever tested positive for HIV. The mandatory condom law was passed in 1988. A study conducted in 1995 in two brothels found that condom use in the brothels was consistent and sexually transmitted diseases were accordingly absent.

Bottle_of_Smoke

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Well that would be the point of legalising prostitution, to get rid of the pimps so there would be none of that crap. Government run brothels, where prostitutes can stay safe, be looked after and taxed.

Regarding Prostitution in Nevada

I don't believe they were absent, thats impossible. Warts/Herpes aren't stopped by condoms.

I agree HIV is highly unlikely but I'd imagine most prostitutes today insist on condoms.

TheInquisitor

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't believe they were absent, thats impossible. Warts/Herpes aren't stopped by condoms.

I agree HIV is highly unlikely but I'd imagine most prostitutes today insist on condoms.

Yes but warts , herpes are normally visible so obviously if the prostitute saw a client with STI's she wouldn't service him!

Also genitial herpes are preventable using condoms

For genital herpes, condoms are highly effective in limiting transmission of herpes simplex infection. The virus cannot pass through latex.

Either way it would be better to have the prostitues using condoms in a safe environment where there are rules and regulations rather than out on the streets where they may be raped etc and unwilling to go to the gardai because their profession is illegal!

A_SN

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't believe they were absent, thats impossible. Warts/Herpes aren't stopped by condoms.

I agree HIV is highly unlikely but I'd imagine most prostitutes today insist on condoms.

That's what the 'dick check' under the UV light is for!

TheInquisitor

A_SN wrote: »

That's what the 'dick check' under the UV light is for!

Does that actually happen? I'm such a prude must go to brothel soon!

A_SN

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Does that actually happen? I'm such a prude must go to brothel soon!

Yeah, it's shown in the video I posted earlier.