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

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Until we know the details of how it would be done, we are only engaging in fantasy about what effects it would or would not have.

We’re really not. I can start from the premise that prostitution is inherently exploitative, and can be considered to be a form of modern day slavery. You can imagine what you like from there.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can understand why it’s being described as rape, because consent can only be considered valid when there is no coercion. Prostitution immediately falls at the first hurdle because prostitution by definition involves offering someone money to have sex with that person.

That is a massively dilute definition of "coercion" and "consent" you are operating under. OFFERING something in return for sex is no coercion in anything but the most selective cherry picking of the many definitions of the word.

Why is money the deciding factor in removal of the ability to consent for example? Why is offering ANYTHING not therefore rape for the same reasons? If it is not someones turn to make the dinners all this week but they say they will do it for a bit of bedroom action... have they just raped their partner????

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s nothing inherently shameful about wanting sex, it’s the using other people to get it, is where the problem arises. Anyone who does that should be ashamed of themselves IMO. Of course anyone who thinks that’s acceptable behaviour or an acceptable attitude to have towards anyone, should be ostracised.

If you want to feel shame for something by all means do. If you want to attack anyone else for not sharing your emotions about it however, that is your issue not theirs.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they weren’t demanding it, then there would be nobody put at risk, and so your issue is really with the people who demand sex from others and think it’s acceptable because they’re paying for it. That’s why it’s dangerous, because the people who demand sex tend to feel hard done by and take it out on a prostitute or prostitutes when they aren’t getting what they feel they’ve paid for.

And that is their issue, not the issue of the sex industry or the workers within it. If a person becomes violent or abusive in ANY context because they feel the service they paid for, and the service they received, are askew..... then we have laws for that and so we should.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We’re really not. I can start from the premise that prostitution is inherently exploitative, and can be considered to be a form of modern day slavery. You can imagine what you like from there.

It is the premise that is itself imagination though. You can start with any premise to engage in a bit of the ould fantasy if you like. No one said otherwise. Pretending the premise upon which the fantasy is based is itself fact and not fantasy however.... is itself fantasy.

But if you say "Changing X will not make people do Y" then this is fantasy until we know the details of X.

jam_mac_jam

Day Lewin wrote: »

Very surprised that sex work is being described as "rape on a daily basis"
Rape, by definition, is non-consensual.

Of course pros do get raped, sometimes: it is a uniquely vulnerable trade: and their assailant can be prosecuted, too, - and rightly so.

But most of the work is NOT rape: it is supplying a service for which there is an endless demand.
Under the radar, furtive, shameful - wanting sex. Tragic, isn't it?
Supplying that service for money is not rape. It's business.
The women (or men) who do that work should enjoy as much protection as any other worker.
Being ostracised,illegal and hidden makes their position ten times more dangerous than it needs to be - thats all.

I said raped every day referring to people who are trafficked. I am not sure how being kidnapped or coerced by violence constitutes consent.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We’re really not. I can start from the premise that prostitution is inherently exploitative, and can be considered to be a form of modern day slavery. You can imagine what you like from there.

You can start from whatever premise you like, but that doesn't mean it's fact.

victor8600

What about the actual facts of the case? Here is what Garda saw:

when Garda Inspector Martin Mooney had led a raid on the club he had noticed a man, tied to a large crucifix, who was having his naked bum whipped in front of customers oddly dressed with few or no clothes on and wearing masks and carrying whips.

So presumably a guy paid some entrance fee, or a fee for someone to whip him. Obviously, there are sexual connotations to sadomasochism, but is it prostitution to receive money to whip someone?

Or was it the other way around? Was the guy exploited, that is paid to be beaten for the amusement of others? Then it is undoubtedly prostitution.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And that is their issue, not the issue of the sex industry or the workers within it. If a person becomes violent or abusive in ANY context because they feel the service they paid for, and the service they received, are askew..... then we have laws for that and so we should.

And we have laws prohibiting prostitution, and so we should, to protect people from being exploited by people who wish to exploit them. That’s why the Gardaí raided the place, because a complaint was made that the landlord suspected their tenant was running a brothel.

BorneTobyWilde

Eric Cartman wrote: »

'Sex Workers' usually don't pay tax , many also defraud the welfare system while being paid in cash.

In Germany they passed a law to recognize prostitution as a job like any other. Sex workers could now enter into employment contracts, sue for payment and register for health insurance, pension plans and other benefits. Exploiting prostitutes was still criminal, but everything else was now above board and gave sex workers a voice and a future in society. They could retire early with big pension plans, as long as they paid in of course.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And we have laws prohibiting prostitution, and so we should, to protect people from being exploited by people who wish to exploit them.

Which is a position you base on the premise you have invented from nowhere, that you see sex work in and of itself as exploitation and slavery and so on. Aside from asserting this as fact however, I am not seeing anything suggesting it is.

Again I will repeat the question every one else, including you, has been dodging. If I pay someone to use their body to manipulate mine in ways I find pleasurable or beneficial.... why is it magically exploitation or slavery if the manipulations happen to be sexual? Why is it NOT exploitation or slavery when it is not sexual in nature? Why is me paying a masseuse to rub every part of my body EXCEPT my genitals not exploitation?

I see no reason to have these laws and I am glad people with more time than I have work against them.

LawBoy2018

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I said raped every day referring to people who are trafficked. I am not sure how being kidnapped or coerced by violence constitutes consent.

This.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again I will repeat the question every one else, including you, has been dodging. If I pay someone to use their body to manipulate mine in ways I find pleasurable or beneficial.... why is it magically exploitation or slavery if the manipulations happen to be sexual? Why is it NOT exploitation or slavery when it is not sexual in nature? Why is me paying a masseuse to rub every part of my body EXCEPT my genitals not exploitation?

Nobody dodged your stupid question, plenty of other posters have entertained your nonsense and given you an explanation from their point of view. You don’t want to accept the answers you were given then that is entirely your issue and nobody else’s, but claiming anyone dodged your question is simply untrue.

BorneTobyWilde

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I said raped every day referring to people who are trafficked. I am not sure how being kidnapped or coerced by violence constitutes consent.

None of that is acceptable. There should be ways out for those in that situation. That's criminal and should never be allowed.
Are their agencies or departments in Ireland to aid such people, they need a place to turn too. A website, a telephone service, a email, some way to contact the right people to help them.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody dodged your stupid question, plenty of other posters have entertained your nonsense and given you an explanation from their point of view. You don’t want to accept the answers you were given then that is entirely your issue and nobody else’s, but claiming anyone dodged your question is simply untrue.

It simply is not, the question has not been answered. What one user did was point out OTHER differences between the two industries that were not at all relevant to the question I was asking. Pretending as they did so that I was not aware such differences exist.

But the question remains unanswered. Including by you. So again I ask it: Why is paying someone to use their body to manipulate mine only "exploitation" if the manipulations happen to be sexual in nature?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And we have laws prohibiting prostitution, and so we should, to protect people from being exploited by people who wish to exploit them. That’s why the Gardaí raided the place, because a complaint was made that the landlord suspected their tenant was running a brothel.

No one's disgreeing with you. Question being raised, is: should it have been illegal in the first place?

Day Lewin

victor8600 wrote: »

What about the actual facts of the case? Here is what Garda saw:


So presumably a guy paid some entrance fee, or a fee for someone to whip him. Obviously, there are sexual connotations to sadomasochism, but is it prostitution to receive money to whip someone?

Or was it the other way around? Was the guy exploited, that is paid to be beaten for the amusement of others? Then it is undoubtedly prostitution.

No, sir, you misunderstand:
These parties are not commercial in that way.

You pay at the door, and once in, you either whip your partner that you came with or you negotiate with someone who you've been introduced to: There are usually "monitors" to oversee that all is being conducted safely and to check that you know what you're doing!

The motto for all BDSM action is ---
Safe, sane and consensual at all times,
- and No means NO - every time.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No one's disgreeing with you. Question being raised, is: should it have been illegal in the first place?

What, should it be illegal to run a brothel in the first place? Yes. I can’t think of any legitimate reason for encouraging prostitution tbh.Tolerance of prostitution only legitimises and encourages the practice, which is not something I think should be encouraged in Irish society. It harks back to a time when slavery was once considered an acceptable practice.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What, should it be illegal to run a brothel in the first place? Yes. I can’t think of any legitimate reason for encouraging prostitution tbh.Tolerance of prostitution only legitimises and encourages the practice, which is not something I think should be encouraged in Irish society. It harks back to a time when slavery was once considered an acceptable practice.

I see no reason for encouraging nail bars either. What has encouragement got to do with anything? There are plenty of industries, products and services we do not encourage. But we do not make them illegal.

I think you are conflating two different things therefore. Encouragement, and legalisation, are two different things entirely. People WITHIN an industry should be able to encourage of course (often, this is called advertising), but often no one else is doing so.

I was one of the most vocal people on boards for legalising choice based abortion for example. I have never once in my life ENCOURAGED anyone to go have one. I see the two things as entirely different. Legalising abortion is not encouraging anyone to have one. I would in fact advocate for all the alternatives to abortion that are out there BEFORE someone turns to it. I would similarly suggest someone go speed dating and try some dating apps long before I would encourage them to seek a sex worker.

But if you are against something then of course you are also against encouragement of that something. That's a bit circular. But not wanting to encourage it would be, if presented thusly, a poor argument for wanting to maintain it's illegal statuses.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What, should it be illegal to run a brothel in the first place? Yes. I can’t think of any legitimate reason for encouraging prostitution tbh.Tolerance of prostitution only legitimises and encourages the practice, which is not something I think should be encouraged in Irish society.

I'm of the opinion that your objections are based purely on the fact that you're simply uncomfortable with the sexuality aspect of it. Irish society is varied and more modern than you give it credit for.

It harks back to a time when slavery was once considered an acceptable practice.

Having someone to come over and clean your house also harks back to slavery. It's what slaves were bought to do.

Putting the slavery angle to bed here - it's just a smokescreen with you.

nozzferrahhtoo

Especially as the religion the user subscribes to harks back to a time when human sacrifice was acceptable. The main character in his religion of choice himself having been crucified. But of all the objections I have against religion NONE of them are couched in the era that religion came from. I can discern the difference between a thing, and the time a thing came from.

I think declaring slavery roots in prostitution is dubious in the extreme. But even if we swallowed that pill whole without scepticism, so what? We can divest any service of it's roots and give people the FREEDOM to choose it as a career if they want. That something had roots in slavery in the past does not whatsoever mean it does now today. And it is what it is TODAY that should be relevant. Not what it once was (or we pretend it once was even if it wasn't) in the past.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that your objections are based purely on the fact that you're simply uncomfortable with the sexuality aspect of it. Irish society is varied and more modern than you give it credit for.

You have no basis for that opinion other than your own prejudice. I’m very comfortable with sexuality, I’m not comfortable with exploitation, and you’re failing to give me credit for being able to distinguish between the two very different ideas.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Having someone to come over and clean your house also harks back to slavery. It's what slaves were bought to do.

Putting the slavery angle to bed here - it's just a smokescreen with you.

What we’re talking about here in this thread though, is prostitution, not housekeeping. You may draw comparisons to other things as you wish, but I’ll stick with making the point that prostitution is modern slavery, which is using people for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You have no basis for that opinion other than your own prejudice. I’m very comfortable with sexuality, I’m not comfortable with exploitation, and you’re failing to give me credit for being able to distinguish between the two very different ideas.

You said "I can’t think of any legitimate reason for encouraging prostitution tbh.Tolerance of prostitution only legitimises and encourages the practice, which is not something I think should be encouraged in Irish society."

This line has nohting to do with slavery and everything to do with your view of what Irish Society should and should not be. It's the sexual element of it.

What we’re talking about here in this thread though, is prostitution, not housekeeping. You may draw comparisons to other things as you wish, but I’ll stick with making the point that prostitution is modern slavery, which is using people for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

So you've gone from "harking back to" to "modern" - not very concistent.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not comfortable with exploitation, and you’re failing to give me credit for being able to distinguish between the two very different ideas.

There is no sign that you DO distinguish between the ideas alas. Especially as despite repeatedly calling sex work exploitation you have not, when asked, offered any argument that it is so. You just re-assert it.

I asked a question, still dodged and unanswered, to try to get to the heart of whether you in fact DO distinguish between the ideas. If you think paying people to manipulate their bodies in some ways are exploitation, but in other ways are not, then what is the locus of separation you are using to discern the two? If that question were answered we could in fact see for ourselves if you can distinguish what you claim to distinguish.

But so far the only difference between one set of manipulations of my body by a paid free lancer, and another, is that one set is sexual in nature and the other is not. Hence my question, which is as yet unanswered.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll stick with making the point that prostitution is modern slavery, which is using people for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

And by dodging the comparison the user made to other things, you are dodging the actual question you are being asked by means of that comparison. Which is, once again, other than mere assertion WHY is it being declared to be slavery or exploitation.

I see no reason, and you certainly have not offered any on this thread or historical threads on the same subject, any reason why paying people to do things with their body is exploitation in one context and not in any number of others. Other than the fact it is sex, what other focal point are you using here?

victor8600

Day Lewin wrote: »

No, sir, you misunderstand:
These parties are not commercial in that way.

You pay at the door, and once in, you either whip your partner that you came with or you negotiate with someone who you've been introduced to: There are usually "monitors" to oversee that all is being conducted safely and to check that you know what you're doing!

The motto for all BDSM action is ---
Safe, sane and consensual at all times,
- and No means NO - every time.

Thank you for the explanation. I wonder what is the real story behind the article. If it is just a BDSM club with rules as you have described, then it seems that Gardai exceeded their powers by intruding on a private party.

After all, besides the amusing fact of a guy being whipped on a cross, everything else are allegations from the landlord that wants an inconvenient tenant out:

... landlord Liam Grant has asked the Circuit Civil Court to direct that Hilda Conway forfeit her tenancy of a basement night club at 127 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin, which he alleged had been used as a brothel and for staging Sadomasochistic practices.

I mean if it was a brothel, there would be prostitutes there, right?

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You said "I can’t think of any legitimate reason for encouraging prostitution tbh.Tolerance of prostitution only legitimises and encourages the practice, which is not something I think should be encouraged in Irish society."

This line has nohting to do with slavery and everything to do with your view of what Irish Society should and should not be. It's the sexual element of it.

No, it’s not the sexual element of it, it’s the exploitation element of it. That’s the difference between consensual sexual relations where consent is considered valid, and sexual relations where consent in invalid because of coercion. That’s why I say harks back to slavery, because the people who were regarded as slaves were coerced. It has nothing to do with consensual sexual relations between adults. I don’t think Irish society should facilitate and encourage exploitation, and it doesn’t encourage it because the law holds people to account when they exploit other people.

You’re big on the whole consent classes stuff, imagine teaching children that as long as you’re paying someone to have sex with them, then it’s ok. They’re immediately going to land themselves in a heap of trouble if they took that lesson on board.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s the difference between consensual sexual relations where consent is considered valid, and sexual relations where consent in invalid because of coercion. That’s why I say harks back to slavery, because the people who were regarded as slaves were coerced.

They were actively forced, sometimes on pain of torture or death, to be slaves or else. That is hardly comparable to someone CHOOSING a career in sex work and then CHOOSING To accept money as a payment for sexual services. Even in a strong field, this is one of your more bloated cases of hyperbole.

The criteria for considering the consent "valid" here are your own sexual biases. Nothing else. YOU have decided yourself what validates consent, based on nothing you have offered when asked, and are just running with that.

If I offered a women money for sex I have no more raped her than you have been raped if your ex offered you sex to do the dishes. Informed sexual consent involves a person being of sound mind, mentally capable, to make a choice for themselves while cognisant of all the factors involved. One of those factors being a factor YOU do not like, does not invalidate consent because consent between adults, who are not you, is not based on your personal likes and dislikes.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It has nothing to do with consensual sexual relations between adults. I don’t think Irish society should facilitate and encourage exploitation

I do not think Irish society should do that either. But one step BEFORE that I also do not think Irish Society should declare something exploitation based on nothing but personal emotional and sexual biases either. What they SHOULD do is discern actual arguments, evidence, data and reasoning behind the argument that something is exploitation and if warranted should THEN act accordingly.

This step you have avoided doing quite fastidiously so far, choosing instead the approach of indict by assertion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re big on the whole consent classes stuff, imagine teaching children that as long as you’re paying someone to have sex with them, then it’s ok.

That would be ridiculous as a thing to teach. I would prefer to teach them how to obtain consent and that money being involved does not invalidate that consent simply because one guy on an internet forum asserts that it does.

Paying for sex NEITHER validates or invalidates consent. It has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It is the person being offered the money that decides if they consent or not.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it’s not the sexual element of it, it’s the exploitation element of it. That’s the difference between consensual sexual relations where consent is considered valid, and sexual relations where consent in invalid because of coercion. That’s why I say harks back to slavery, because the people who were regarded as slaves were coerced. It has nothing to do with consensual sexual relations between adults. I don’t think Irish society should facilitate and encourage exploitation, and it doesn’t encourage it because the law holds people to account when they exploit other people.

You’re big on the whole consent classes stuff, imagine teaching children that as long as you’re paying someone to have sex with them, then it’s ok. They’re immediately going to land themselves in a heap of trouble if they took that lesson on board.

You're not saying anything new here, you're just reiterating what you've already said and what has been proven fallacy by the facts that other countries have legalised prostitution; and the fact that other industries are also open to abuse but you're not botherred by these.

Last paragrpah is concistent with my belief: both parites consent, what's the problem? The issue of sex education in schools is completly irrleevant (we're not talking about kids) and will be dismissed as such from here on in.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You're not saying anything new here, you're just reiterating what you've already said and what has been proven fallacy by the facts that other countries have legalised prostitution; and the fact that other industries are also open to abuse but you're not botherred by these.

I don’t think it actually is a fact that prostitution being legal in other countries has reduced exploitation, it appears to have had the opposite effect. That is - increased exploitation. I am bothered by exploitation in other industries too but the one that’s relevant to this thread is prostitution.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Last paragrpah is concistent with my belief: both parites consent, what's the problem? The issue of sex education in schools is completly irrleevant (we're not talking about kids) and will be dismissed as such from here on in.

The problem is you’re ignoring what Irish law says constitutes consent.

rossie1977

The Gardaí should not be getting involved in this. Wasting public tax money on stuff like this is downright disgraceful.

And yes prohibition does not work...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think it actually is a fact that prostitution being legal in other countries has reduced exploitation, it appears to have had the opposite effect. That is - increased exploitation. I am bothered by exploitation in other industries too but the one that’s relevant to this thread is prostitution.

No it hasn't. Regulation helps the workers.

End of discussion. You're adding nothing, blurring lines and making up stuff in the hope I'm going to beleive it.

You've done nothing to convince anyone that legalised prostitution will encourage slavery.

BorneTobyWilde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think it actually is a fact that prostitution being legal in other countries has reduced exploitation, it appears to have had the opposite effect. That is - increased exploitation. I am bothered by exploitation in other industries too but the one that’s relevant to this thread is prostitution.





The problem is you’re ignoring what Irish law says constitutes consent.

Independent sex workers would disagree with everything you say. They fight for the legitimacy of their career choice.
Governments and some people like to throw sex trafficking and sex workers into the one box, but they're completely different. Even in countries that legalize prostitution sex trafficking is still highly criminal. It's not a choice, no one knows whats going on with the current laws, as you can't tell one from the other.
Look at Berlin, loud and proud of their high class gentlemen clubs, while fighting a good fight against trafficking.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No it hasn't. Regulation helps the workers.

End of discussion. You're adding nothing, blurring lines and making up stuff in the hope I'm going to beleive it.

You've done nothing to convince anyone that legalised prostitution will encourage slavery.

“Regulation helps the workers”, and you accuse me of making things up in an attempt to convince anyone that legalising prostitution increases exploitation?

Sure I’d encourage anyone to go off and do their own homework and form their own opinions as to whether or not legalisation increases exploitation or regulation helps prostitutes. Regulation has only enabled pimps to appear as though they’re running a legitimate business, it hasn’t done anything to curb exploitation.

I don’t have to convince anyone of anything, they can see it for themselves.