Call to legalese brothels in Ireland.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, the 5% and 95% example is just hypothetical it isn't based in facts. I can make up statistics in my favour and then insist that you reply to them too.

Whereas, it is factual that there is less of a problem with sex trafficking in a country where it is illegal than where it is not. I'm still not satisfied that the risk is dramatically lower in the Netherlands than anywhere else due to the presence and involvement of criminal gangs in the process. Seriously why do you think the Dutch Government are getting all hot and bothered about the practice? It doesn't add up. The predictions made about sex trafficking on this thread are clearly wrong. It worsened between 2007 and 2008 in the Netherlands, it didn't improve.

Sweden has less of a problem with a lot of things but that doesn't necessarily mean that making prostitution legal is the cause. Could they not make it legal while simultaneously clamping down on trafficking? Surely it's harder to find them when the entire industry is hidden away in the criminal underworld instead of out in the open?

The statistics were made up but the fact remains that legalisation and control does increase the ability of the police to identify and punish offenders. Whether it's 95% and 5% exactly doesn't change that fact.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sweden has less of a problem with a lot of things but that doesn't necessarily mean that making prostitution legal is the cause. Could they not make it legal while simultaneously clamping down on trafficking? Surely it's harder to find them when the entire industry is hidden away in the criminal underworld instead of out in the open?

Yes it does considering that there was a change between the time they started this initiative and now. Swedish government officials have hailed it as a success and 80% of the Swedish population support the law. Prostitution there is considered an act of violence.

See my previous links for how the law has been a success. Norway and Iceland are bringing in similar measures this year according to the Wikipedia link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The statistics were made up but the fact remains that legalisation and control does increase the ability of the police to identify and punish offenders. Whether it's 95% and 5% exactly doesn't change that fact.

It does certainly. Those are polar extremes that are put there to mould the argument to your own favour. You have nothing to suggest that what you have said is "fact". Legislation like the Swedish model has been shown to be more effective in several respects, the links are right on the previous few pages. Surely you can admit that the initiative was reasonably successful despite your disagreement to their method?

mateo

panda100 wrote: »

Yes I definatly think it should be legalised. The grey area around escorting in Ireland means that many women are put at risk on a daily basis beacuse the law cannot protect them.

If a prostiute is in trouble with a client ,where they are being physically threatening or abusive, then there first port of call should be the police. Most escorts in Ireland at the moment wouldnt feel safe calling the police as there is no real law to protect them.

Also, regular std screening etc should be mandatory and medical examinations undertaken regularly. There should be a state agency regulating this sort of thing. Also,the state agency can inform prositutes of bad and dangerous clients.

Like it or lump it,prostiution exists in Ireland but it remains a dangerous,seedy underworld. Proper enforced legislation surrounding it would mean more saftey for both the client and the escort.

Perfectly put!

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes it does considering that there was a change between the time they started this initiative and now. Swedish government officials have hailed it as a success and 80% of the Swedish population support the law. Prostitution there is considered an act of violence.

See my previous links for how the law has been a success. Norway and Iceland are bringing in similar measures this year according to the Wikipedia link below.

I'm on a mobile now so I'm not going to be checking any links but basically Jakkass, they've been trying prohibition for 2000 years and you're now saying "I have a brilliant idea: prohibition!!!"

And the fact remains, the prostitutes in the article you quoted said it had just gone underground and they'd know best

Jakkass wrote: »

It does certainly. Those are polar extremes that are put there to mould the argument to your own favour. You have nothing to suggest that what you have said is "fact". Legislation like the Swedish model has been shown to be more effective in several respects, the links are right on the previous few pages. Surely you can admit that the initiative was reasonably successful despite your disagreement to their method?

I have common sense to suggest that what I am saying is fact. There is no way you can suggest that it's easier to police something in the criminal underworld than in a regulated business

Joey the lips

Stupid argurement should not be legalised. We would be better focusing on more campagns like this

http://www.amnesty.ie/amnesty/live/irish/news-events/article.asp?id=32889&page=4540

Then listening to another gobsh1te

Prof.Badass

There's loads of other places worldwide that have regulated prostitution.
None of them have the massive problems you seem to suggest they should have.

The reason the trafficers go to amsterdam is because that is the place where most of the sex tourists go. If it was legal everywhere you wouldn't see this.

Of course the traffickers go where they're least likely to get caught. But that doesn't stop them in any way (it's similar to the balloon effect). If everywhere was as strict as them, the traffickers would move back in.
There are still prostitutes in sweden, working in appalling conditions, and as long as there is a demand for prostitutes this will always be the case. I don't see why you can't have both regulated prostitution AND 0 tolerance for trafficking.

Also you're denying the fact that as they're so much stricter in sweden a hell of a lot more of it may be slipping completely under the radar of whoever makes these surveys.

philologos

vinylmesh: All of these countries have problems. There is not a single one that can be said to be seamless in terms of operation. If there can I am welcome to be proven wrong by statistics to suggest otherwise. To say that it is one off is also absurd. Tourists also go to Thailand for prostitution, which is notorious for child prostitution.

Yes, there are still prostitutes in Sweden, there just happens to be much fewer of them now than there was prior to the ban. There is also less trafficking. Whether you like it or lump it it's been a huge success. Minimising prostitution is better than maximising it for showing clear progress.

This is what the facts show, if you want to argue otherwise bring some evidence to the table.

The Mad Hatter

Joey the lips wrote: »

Stupid argurement should not be legalised.

I agree, but - sadly - stupid argument is already legal.

We would be better focusing on more campagns like this

http://www.amnesty.ie/amnesty/live/irish/news-events/article.asp?id=32889&page=4540

Then listening to another gobsh1te

But what if I don't want to listen to another gobsh1te after focusing on that campagn?





(As to the topic, I think the only sensible thing to do is legalisation with regulation and strict measures to ensure exploitation and trafficking are kept to a minimum. Complete prohibition has never worked, and there's no reason to assume it would now.)

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

vinylmesh: All of these countries have problems. There is not a single one that can be said to be seamless in terms of operation. If there can I am welcome to be proven wrong by statistics to suggest otherwise. To say that it is one off is also absurd. Tourists also go to Thailand for prostitution, which is notorious for child prostitution.

There is not one country in the world where the operation is seamless whether the operation is legal prostitution or attempted enforcement. Why do you insist that legalisation must be 100% effective before it is employed when your solution has proven to be dramatically less than 100% effective?

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, there are still prostitutes in Sweden, there just happens to be much fewer of them now than there was prior to the ban. There is also less trafficking. Whether you like it or lump it it's been a huge success. Minimising prostitution is better than maximising it for showing clear progress.

This is what the facts show, if you want to argue otherwise bring some evidence to the table.

The prostitutes in the article you quoted said it had just gone underground or online and they'd know best being in the industry themselves.

Also, I often use sweden as an example of how a country with a large percentage of atheists can work well and you insist on using examples like North Korea and China. Are we only allowed use sweden as an example when it suits your purposes?

philologos

I couldn't care what religion people are in Sweden, it's about prostitution not about atheism. I personally don't think they are linked. You are the one who insists that atheist societies operate better than ones which don't. I say, you're talking a load of tripe because countries with majority atheists in them are very oppressive in some cases, and in others they are freedom loving. I personally don't care. I just think the Swedes have it right on prostitution and the Dutch model is terrible.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I couldn't care what religion people are in Sweden, it's about prostitution not about atheism.

I know it is. My point is that you're holding sweden up as the pinnacle of successful policy but you insist on using North Korea as an example when an aspect of swedish culture goes against your opinions. Maybe the reason there's less prostitution is that atheists are less likely to go to prostitutes so there's less demand. Maybe the whole culture up there is different, which I know it is having lived there for 6 months. Maybe it's not as simple as enforcement works as has been shown in every country in the world throughout history

philologos

Swedish culture doesn't go against my opinion at all. Cultures differ in standard irrespective of religion. Sweden could be Buddhist for all I care, but I agree on it's policy on prostitution. It's possible to agree with one aspect of political policy and disagree with another.

We are discussing politics not religion. Aren't you one of those guys who likes his religion apart from his politics? (if so why on earth are you trying to collide them to one).

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You are the one who insists that atheist societies operate better than ones which don't. I say, you're talking a load of tripe because countries with majority atheists in them are very oppressive in some cases, and in others they are freedom loving. I personally don't care. I just think the Swedes have it right on prostitution and the Dutch model is terrible.

So you don't think it's linked when a country full of atheists does something you like but you insist that it is linked when a country that's full of atheists does something you don't like

For the millionth time, North Korea and China are dictatorships that violently oppress their people. The fact that the governments happen to enforce atheism is incidental. I don't actually think that atheism is the reason for low prostitution in sweden, just pointing out the hypocricy of putting the country on a pedestal for how they deal with prostitutes and completely ignoring it in religious debates, focussing instead on North Korea and making out that its problems come from atheism instead of totalitarianism

The Mad Hatter

Sam: I agree with you on the legalisation of prostitution, but you're not going down a very rational path here.

I think the issue is whether prostitutes are better treated in Amsterdam or in Sweden. I doubt that they're better treated in Sweden, even if there are fewer of them.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't actually think that atheism is the reason for low prostitution in sweden, just pointing out the hypocricy of putting the country on a pedestal for how they deal with prostitutes and completely ignoring it in religious debates, focussing instead on North Korea and making out that its problems come from atheism instead of totalitarianism

That's the point. When you say nonsense like Sweden's great and it's majority atheist, I can argue the same about any other country. Just like in North Korea the main motivator may not be the atheism (it's a minor one in religious persecution there), atheism is not the main motivator in Sweden, Denmark or any other country in Europe. That was my exact point

A_SN

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

Has anyone else seen that episode of that show with Stephen Fry where he visited a legal brothel in Nevada? Nevada is the only American state where brothels are allowed, but they have very strict rules, so much that they put your junk under a UV light before doing anything, and you have to make a list of anything you want to do with the "courtesan" and then the "courtesan" gives her price and anyways these girls seemed pretty happy about their job. As long as you have very strict rules and oversight...

Anyways banning prostitution it's like pushing abstinence, it can't work, it's bound to fail, people are gonna do it anyways. That's one of those things that fail catastrophically at being prohibited, like alcohol, it always ends up with much crime and drama and people hardly doing it any less. Same for weed.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

That's the point. When you say nonsense like Sweden's great and it's majority atheist, I can argue the same about any other country. Just like in North Korea the main motivator may not be the atheism (it's a minor one in religious persecution there), atheism is not the main motivator in Sweden, Denmark or any other country in Europe. That was my exact point

And it's not the main motivator in North Korea or China either yet you insist on using them as examples against atheism

@The Mad Hatter, I'm just trying to talk to Jakkass in a way he understands, which I also admit can be very irrational

A_SN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also, I often use sweden as an example of how a country with a large percentage of atheists can work well and you insist on using examples like North Korea and China. Are we only allowed use sweden as an example when it suits your purposes?

I'm atheist but I'm seriously pissed off by people who act like atheists are so much better than anyone else and are more peaceful and tolerant and sexy and all that bull****. In my experience anyone who says that is so full of **** you can smell it in their breath :pac:. Seriously, some of them actually argue that the world would be such a better ****ing place devoid of any wars if everybody was a godless know-it-all and read **** by Richard Dawkins.

Hey USSR is a good example of a godless country too, isn't it? I'd say England is too, considered there's more practising muslims than practising christians, not sure where that puts it, probably shows that atheism hardly even correlates to any of the qualities of a society.

Sam Vimes

A_SN wrote: »

I'm atheist but I'm seriously pissed off by people who act like atheists are so much better than anyone else and are more peaceful and tolerant and sexy and all that bull****. In my experience anyone who says that is so full of **** you can smell it in their breath :pac:. Seriously, some of them actually argue that the world would be such a better ****ing place devoid of any wars if everybody was a godless know-it-all and read **** by Richard Dawkins.

Hey USSR is a good example of a godless country too, isn't it? I'd say England is too, considered there's more practising muslims than practising christians, not sure where that puts it, probably shows that atheism hardly even correlates to any of the qualities of a society.

I know atheism doesn't automatically make a country good but I use sweden as an example of how it'r not necessarily bad either

@Jakkass, this is all irrelevant anyway because your underlying objection to prostitution stems from the fact you think it's inherently wrong. Even if gang activity, exploitation and trafficking could be completely eliminated you would still want it to be illegal because you think it's an inherently bad thing. It would still be "detrimental to society"

Prof.Badass

Jakkass wrote: »

vinylmesh: All of these countries have problems. There is not a single one that can be said to be seamless in terms of operation.

Is sweden seamless in it's terms of operation?
You have already conceeded that it is not.Prostitution still exists, and always will.

To say that it is one off is also absurd. Tourists also go to Thailand for prostitution, which is notorious for child prostitution.

Are you even for one second suggesting that thailand could be a model for any sort of regulation? Pretty much everything is dodgy in thailand.

Whether you like it or lump it it has been a huge success. Minimising prostitution is better than maximising it for showing clear progress.

How do you know? The more underground an industry is pushed the less likely the authorities are gonna know about it. There is no doubt in my mind that attitudes towards prostitution in the netherlands make it far easier for these people to come forward.

From a personal freedom point of view I think people should be allowed exchange sexual favours for money if they want to. What right have you or I to enforce our personal beliefs on others?

If certain abuses are going on then we should try and deal with those abuses without discriminating against innocent people and treading all over the freedom of the populous, should we not?

Do you think diamonds should be banned because of the apalling abuse that is sometimes associated with them?

What about cotton clothing?

what about the catholic church?

I'd see that as completely unfair on the vast majority of the innocent people involved.

See, I think your opposition to regulated prostitution stems more from your opposition to prostitution in general, rather than any cares you might have for victims of human traficking.

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.