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

Yeah_Right

If we are to condemn the sex industry due to actions and practices of some, surely we should do the same to the child care industry.
https://www.thejournal.ie/creche-worker-5110339-May2020/

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0221/1116748-creche-abuse-case/

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/creche-chain-exposed-in-rte-investigates-crying-children-mistreated-and-left-at-risk-38344447.html

It is clearly an industry wide problem. Maybe we should make creches and childcare work illegal.

One eyed Jack

Yeah_Right wrote: »

If we are to condemn the sex industry due to actions and practices of some, surely we should do the same to the child care industry.
https://www.thejournal.ie/creche-worker-5110339-May2020/

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0221/1116748-creche-abuse-case/

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/creche-chain-exposed-in-rte-investigates-crying-children-mistreated-and-left-at-risk-38344447.html

It is clearly an industry wide problem. Maybe we should make creches and childcare work illegal.

1. Society already does condemn exploitation in the childcare industry, and regulation hasn’t curbed exploitation in the industry. You even linked to case investigated by the Gardaí yourself?

Nobody is suggesting that we should abandon all attempts to eradicate exploitation in the childcare industry, just like the State isn’t going to abandon all attempts to curb exploitation in the sex industry just because some people argue their attempts have failed.

2. Prostitution in Ireland isn’t illegal?

rossie1977

If your argument against regulation is 'well there are still criminal elements'.. then it's not much of an argument.

There are criminal elements involved in pretty much every industry from alcohol to tobacco to property to sports franchises.

But its a hell of alot easier to identify criminality in a regulated industry than in one that isn't.

Prohibition does not work. It has never worked. Driving anything underground means its controlled 100% by criminals, usually very violent criminals.

One eyed Jack

rossie1977 wrote: »

If your argument against regulation is 'well there are still criminal elements'.. then it's not much of an argument.

There are criminal elements involved in pretty much every industry from alcohol to tobacco to property to sports franchises.

But its a hell of alot easier to identify criminality in a regulated industry than in one that isn't.

Prohibition does not work. It has never worked. Driving anything underground means its controlled 100% by criminals, usually very violent criminals.

Regulation wouldn’t mean the industry wouldn’t still be controlled by people willing to exploit others. Now whether those people are criminals or not is a different question entirely, innocent until proven guilty, due process and all that craic.

However it isn’t any easier to identify criminality in a regulated industry than one that isn’t (the amount of people who commit fraud in the financial services sector alone is testament to that fact).

But you’re right at least on prohibition, during what was arguably one of the most prohibitive periods in Irish history, the Monto was quite a popular spot for British soldiers. As soon as they left, it was as though the place was no longer viable having lost it’s best customers :pac:

Tired Gardener

Regulation is a good thing, I just doubt it wil erode the criminal aspect of sex work sadly.

Money is a not a substitute for consent, it completely changed the dynamics. It puts people (very usually at risk women) in a position where they are unable to voice their objections. Handing money to someone to use their body for sexual gratification is in no way an activity where adults meet as equals. It gives all the power to the one with the money.

I can't imagine the majority of sex workers consent or even want to engage in a sexual activity with their clients.

Sex simply has far greater long reaching ramifications for women than it does men.

If it could be legalised and not have the criminal aspect and issues of consent, then it would be fine. As it is, it really is a tricky subject. I am all for removing power from criminals, which I understand making it legal will partially do.

I will admit to thinking that there is no real solution to this issue, all we can hope to do is make it better for those who sadly end up in this situation.

ronivek

Tired Gardener wrote: »

If it could be legalised and not have the criminal aspect and issues of consent, then it would be fine. As it is, it really is a tricky subject. I am all for removing power from criminals, which I understand making it legal will partially do.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason there is a criminal aspect in the first place might be due to the societal stigma and its legality? That in fact if women (and indeed men; there are a significant number of male sex workers too) could set up a safe and 100% legal business to serve a particular market that trafficking in sex workers would be much less likely?

jam_mac_jam

If it was correctly policed and enough resources to manage it properly then it could be legalized.

The issue I have for this is that when it is legalised the number of people trafficked increases. I can understand the logic of consenting adults being allowed to pay for sex and I agree with the point.

It's the side effects of it that I would be worried about. Realistically how much resources are going to be put into protecting people being trafficked? The market increases and trafficking increases where its its legalised.

If Germany and the Netherlands have problems with this I can't imagine us being able to tackle it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/germany-slow-to-tackle-human-trafficking-rights-evaluators-find/a-49279005
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jun/22/trouble-in-paradise-rise-and-fall-of-germany-brothel-king-jurgen-rudloff
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1CN1R2

whisky_galore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Plenty of people know exactly what’s going on, that’s why only a minority of people are in favour of it’s decriminalisation. Decriminalisation wouldn’t suddenly make all the people who are currently involved in it decide that they want to go legit, simply because legitimisation and regulation mean accountability, and criminals don’t do accountability.

In essence all you’d be doing is encouraging exploitation - inspections every so often to ensure everything is above board, while the vast majority of exploitation would still go unhindered and encouraged by misguided notions that regulation would make the industry any safer. It hasn’t, it’s only increased exploitation of people is all.

Plenty. Who?
How many people?

A minority. Again, where is this coming from?

One eyed Jack

ronivek wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that the reason there is a criminal aspect in the first place might be due to the societal stigma and its legality? That in fact if women (and indeed men; there are a significant number of male sex workers too) could set up a safe and 100% legal business to serve a particular market that trafficking in sex workers would be much less likely?

I’ve no doubt that thought occurs to most people who think about this issue, and then they look at countries where prostitution is legal and see that historically it has increased human trafficking into those countries for the purposes of sexual exploitation - works out a lot cheaper for the business to import people from abroad, and people who frequent these establishments are more interested in getting value for money than the welfare of the prostitutes who are servicing them.

jam_mac_jam

ronivek wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that the reason there is a criminal aspect in the first place might be due to the societal stigma and its legality? That in fact if women (and indeed men; there are a significant number of male sex workers too) could set up a safe and 100% legal business to serve a particular market that trafficking in sex workers would be much less likely?

Trafficking has increased in all countries when it is legalised. It has decreased in countries which have tightened regulations such as Sweden.

That may be due to the fact it attracts the market from other countries where it is ilegal.

However legalized prostitution increases not decreases trafficking.

whisky_galore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But you’re right at least on prohibition, during what was arguably one of the most prohibitive periods in Irish history, the Monto was quite a popular spot for British soldiers. As soon as they left, it was as though the place was no longer viable having lost it’s best customers :pac:

Point out the bleedin obvious. A large military personnel presence in any place has this effect, whether it's Dublin, Paris or Saigon or wherever.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Regulation wouldn’t mean the industry wouldn’t still be controlled by people willing to exploit others. Now whether those people are criminals or not is a different question entirely, innocent until proven guilty, due process and all that craic.

However it isn’t any easier to identify criminality in a regulated industry than one that isn’t (the amount of people who commit fraud in the financial services sector alone is testament to that fact).

But you’re right at least on prohibition, during what was arguably one of the most prohibitive periods in Irish history, the Monto was quite a popular spot for British soldiers. As soon as they left, it was as though the place was no longer viable having lost it’s best customers :pac:

If you consider how much more common smoking and drinking are compared with illegal drug use, prohibition obviously does have a pretty big impact. Across every age group and gender in Ireland, most people drink and it is considered normal to do so. It is not considered normal to take cocaine and is quite rare in older age groups that would happily have a drink.

So prohibition doesn’t stamp the whole thing out 100%, but it certainly has some impact.

One eyed Jack

whisky_galore wrote: »

Plenty. Who?
How many people?

A minority. Again, where is this coming from?

I would suggest everyone in Irish society who has the capacity to understand what the word ‘prostitution’ means.

The minority I was referring to are the minority of people who argue in favour of decriminalising prostitution in Ireland.

One eyed Jack

whisky_galore wrote: »

Point out the bleedin obvious. A large military personnel presence in any place has this effect, whether it's Dublin, Paris or Saigon or wherever.

Obviously?

The poster I was quoting made the point that prohibition doesn’t work. I agree with them, certainly in relation to prostitution, prohibition doesn’t work. It simply drives up demand for cheaper alternatives because legitimate opportunities are far too costly. That’s why when the soldiers left, business at the Monto dried up, it was simply no longer a viable business.

That’s why what’s called the Swedish model has been as effective as it has been in curbing the demand for prostitution - there’s simply no money in the industry any more, and the risk of a criminal conviction is a deterrent. It’s the same here - risk of a criminal conviction is a deterrent, but obviously there are still the foolhardy few who are prepared to risk a criminal conviction to get their rocks off.

It’s already been widely acknowledged that the risk of people becoming victims of sexual exploitation can never be completely eradicated, but the law exists to reduce that risk and discourage people from considering prostitution in the first place as a means to provide for themselves.

ronivek

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve no doubt that thought occurs to most people who think about this issue, and then they look at countries where prostitution is legal and see that historically it has increased human trafficking into those countries for the purposes of sexual exploitation - works out a lot cheaper for the business to import people from abroad, and people who frequent these establishments are more interested in getting value for money than the welfare of the prostitutes who are servicing them.

I haven't looked at any specific examples; would you care to share some data or research?

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Trafficking has increased in all countries when it is legalised. It has decreased in countries which have tightened regulations such as Sweden.

That may be due to the fact it attracts the market from other countries where it is ilegal.

However legalized prostitution increases not decreases trafficking.

I'm not sure we're using the same definition of trafficking here. Workers in 'poorer' countries are always attracted to countries with higher wages for the same work; especially across the EU. To me this is a perfectly normal and legitimate movement of workers. Are you suggesting that the illegal trafficking of women by third parties increases in all countries where it is legalised?

One eyed Jack

ronivek wrote: »

I haven't looked at any specific examples; would you care to share some data or research?

I suppose this is as good a place to start as any, the article discusses a study of a comprehensive analysis of 116 countries. Data is out of date by now obviously as the study was conducted in 2012, but it’ll give you some idea -


The study’s findings include:

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.

The effect of legal prostitution on human trafficking inflows is stronger in high-income countries than middle-income countries. Because trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation requires that clients in a potential destination country have sufficient purchasing power, domestic supply acts as a constraint.

Criminalization of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows. Cross-country comparisons of Sweden with Denmark (where prostitution is decriminalized) and Germany (expanded legalization of prostitution) are consistent with the quantitative analysis, showing that trafficking inflows decreased with criminalization and increased with legalization.

The type of legalization of prostitution does not matter — it only matters whether prostitution is legal or not. Whether third-party involvement (persons who facilitate the prostitution businesses, i.e, “pimps”) is allowed or not does not have an effect on human trafficking inflows into a country. Legalization of prostitution itself is more important in explaining human trafficking than the type of legalization.

Democracies have a higher probability of increased human-trafficking inflows than non-democratic countries. There is a 13.4% higher probability of receiving higher inflows in a democratic country than otherwise.


Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?

Assetbacked

KiKi III wrote: »

In answer to your question, no, I don’t think brothels should be made legal. I used to think as you did; regulate it and tax it.

I thought it would be safer for women and lead to less sex trafficking. But looking at other countries where this has happened, there has been no corresponding reduction in sex trafficking to them.

Have you been to a sex club in Germany? Or even to a nude sauna somewhere in the continent? Before I pass judgment on this post I would like to understand your context.

Assetbacked

KiKi III wrote: »

If you consider how much more common smoking and drinking are compared with illegal drug use, prohibition obviously does have a pretty big impact. Across every age group and gender in Ireland, most people drink and it is considered normal to do so. It is not considered normal to take cocaine and is quite rare in older age groups that would happily have a drink.

So prohibition doesn’t stamp the whole thing out 100%, but it certainly has some impact.

It turns it into a big revenue spinner and job creator for the economy. Further, it is acceptable to admit dependency and over consumption issues and there are above board treatments available to assist with the problems. With prohibition, good luck dealing with the stigma in the first instance and then also good luck finding a well resourced support body to help you. Further, public funding to the negative implications comes from general taxation and not from taxation generated from legalising the illicit activity. Prohibition is a catastrophic failure of policy.

ronivek

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I suppose this is as good a place to start as any, the article discusses a study of a comprehensive analysis of 116 countries. Data is out of date by now obviously as the study was conducted in 2012, but it’ll give you some idea

...

Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?

Interesting. If I understand the paper correctly (I only skimmed it really) they're saying that on average legalisation leads to an expansion of the prostitution market in that country. Further; they're saying that the number of local prostitutes does not grow to the same extent as the number of trafficked prostitutes.

The authors do add a rather important caveat:

The problem here lies in the clandestine nature of both the prostitution and trafficking markets, making it difficult, perhaps impossible, to find hard evidence establishing this relationship. Our central finding, i.e., that countries
with legalized prostitution experience a larger reported incidence of trafficking inflows, is therefore best regarded as being based on the most reliable existing data, but needs to be subjected to future scrutiny.

It certainly makes sense that legalising something would cause the market for that thing to expand. In particular it also generally allows more accurate statistics to be collected which can highlight discrepancies in estimation. It also makes sense that traffickers would jump at the chance to capture more of a growing market.

jam_mac_jam

ronivek wrote: »

I haven't looked at any specific examples; would you care to share some data or research?



I'm not sure we're using the same definition of trafficking here. Workers in 'poorer' countries are always attracted to countries with higher wages for the same work; especially across the EU. To me this is a perfectly normal and legitimate movement of workers. Are you suggesting that the illegal trafficking of women by third parties increases in all countries where it is legalised?

I am not talking about migrant workers. I am talking about trafficking that's why I used the word trafficking.

Which increases in countries where prostitution is legalised. As I said. Yes I am suggesting that because its true.

ronivek

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I am not talking about migrant workers. I am talking about trafficking that's why I used the word trafficking.

Which increases in countries where prostitution is legalised. As I said. Yes I am suggesting that because its true.

Which is why I asked the question; to be sure we were talking about the same thing.

One of the key issues with that statement is that by its very definition there are unlikely to be any kind of reliable statistics on rates of illegal trafficking. Even the study linked above concedes that point. However it does make sense that a larger market would lead to more trafficking if there were not enough local workers to fulfil the demand.

ronivek

There is an interesting paper which cites the one mentioned previously: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2057299

It proposes the following (theoretical) model to eliminate the trafficking element:

A policy of licensing prostitutes and criminalizing the purchase of sex from unlicensed prostitutes decreases trafficking and increases voluntary prostitution.
High enough penalties on johns in the unlicensed sector can eradicate trafficking and restore the benchmark outcome.

We're already part of the way there considering the act of paying for sex is illegal here. I suppose the big problem with this suggestion would be the licensing part; which would require investment and political will. And then if you were looking to reduce sex-related trafficking across Europe as a whole it would require EU licensing; which is even less likely to happen.

Tired Gardener

ronivek wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that the reason there is a criminal aspect in the first place might be due to the societal stigma and its legality? That in fact if women (and indeed men; there are a significant number of male sex workers too) could set up a safe and 100% legal business to serve a particular market that trafficking in sex workers would be much less likely?

I doubt trafficking would be less likely. That doesn't mean I am against it being made legal, as I think regardless of whether it is legal or not sex work will happen, and trafficking will also happen. It is a lucrative source of revenue for those who engage in sex trafficking.

The criminal aspect is not just going to suddenly vanish into thin air, there will always be sadly a black market.

givyjoe

DrSerious3 wrote: »

Pro-choice, as long as you agree with the choice they are making.

Par for the course.

ronivek

Tired Gardener wrote: »

I doubt trafficking would be less likely. That doesn't mean I am against it being made legal, as I think regardless of whether it is legal or not sex work will happen, and trafficking will also happen. It is a lucrative source of revenue for those who engage in sex trafficking.

The criminal aspect is not just going to suddenly vanish into thin air, there will always be sadly a black market.

Yeah having done a little reading it does seem that legalisation is not enough to tackle the trafficking element. I think the key is how to set up and manage a safe and legal market for sex work such that trafficking becomes prohibitively difficult and/or expensive.

One eyed Jack

ronivek wrote: »

Yeah having done a little reading it does seem that legalisation is not enough to tackle the trafficking element. I think the key is how to set up and manage a safe and legal market for sex work such that trafficking becomes prohibitively difficult and/or expensive.

Tbh I can't see that happening, as there was an EU Directive from 2011 which mandated all signatories in Europe to work towards eliminating prostitution. Check out Article 2, under the heading of Offences concerning trafficking in human beings -


3. Exploitation shall include, as a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, including begging, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the exploitation of criminal activities, or the removal of organs.


DIRECTIVE 2011/36/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA


Germany of course has tried going the way of regulation by licensing as you suggested earlier, but it hasn't really been working out all that well, quite simply because the prostitutes themselves don't want it -


Regulations for prostitutes

As of 1 July 2017, the law requires persons who wish to pursue or pursue prostitution in Germany to register their activities with the competent authority.

There will be an information and information discussion, in which the notifying person should be informed about the social legislation in Germany, about counselling services and the contents of the new law. After completion of prescribed health advice, a registration certificate is issued - colloquially and by some interest groups "whore ID" or "whore pass" - which includes a photo. The registration certificate is valid for two years; for prostitutes under the age of 21, it is valid for only one year. In the case of renewal of the registration certificate, it must be shown that a health consultation took place annually - for prostitutes under the age of 21 every six months.

Upon request, the Office may issue a supplementary alias attestation, in which the real name is replaced by a pseudonym to protect the identity of the person.

The information about the registration confirmation is sent automatically in electronic form to the responsible tax offices.

The law stipulates that the authority responsible for counselings "arranges for the measures necessary for the protection of the person" if there are indications that a person is not pursuing prostitution of his own free will or is being forced to do so.


Prostitutes Protection Act

KiKi III

Assetbacked wrote: »

Have you been to a sex club in Germany? Or even to a nude sauna somewhere in the continent? Before I pass judgment on this post I would like to understand your context.

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

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

ronivek

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Tbh I can't see that happening, as there was an EU Directive from 2011 which mandated all signatories in Europe to work towards eliminating prostitution. Check out Article 2, under the heading of Offences concerning trafficking in human beings -


3. Exploitation shall include, as a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, including begging, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the exploitation of criminal activities, or the removal of organs.

I don't think this means what you think it means: this is explicitly calling out 'the exploitation of prostitution of others'; it is not making nor purporting to make any judgements on prostitution itself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Germany of course has tried going the way of regulation by licensing as you suggested earlier, but it hasn't really been working out all that well, quite simply because the prostitutes themselves don't want it -
...

Prostitutes Protection Act

A cursory glance would show that indeed some prostitutes objected on various grounds ranging from fees and taxation to privacy concerns: I don't see anything to indicate a majority objected wholesale to the act. Indeed I wouldn't be terribly surprised even if they did; I can't imagine too many people working cash in hand would necessarily enjoy paying additional tax and fees to remain licensed. Likewise brothels being responsible for only employing licensed prostitutes etc. etc.

As far as the paper above they mentioned that making it illegal to pay an unlicensed prostitute for sex is also important if your goal is to reduce or eliminate trafficking; as are stiff penalties for the clients. I don't see that this has been done in Germany.

Day Lewin

I'm still a bit baffled by all this talk of trafficking...

if I go to a nightclub and meet a guy and end up drunkenly screwing over a bar table (if it's that kind of party) or in the car park (if it's not) then I'm just a normal member of the sad, lost Tinder generation.

But if I ask him for fifty quid to do the full Monty with a happy ending, I suddenly become a trafficking victim and an object of pity and relentless do-goodery?

How does this happen? and WHY?

KiKi III

Day Lewin wrote: »

I'm still a bit baffled by all this talk of trafficking...

if I go to a nightclub and meet a guy and end up drunkenly screwing over a bar table (if it's that kind of party) or in the car park (if it's not) then I'm just a normal member of the sad, lost Tinder generation.

But if I ask him for fifty quid to do the full Monty with a happy ending, I suddenly become a trafficking victim and an object of pity and relentless do-goodery?

How does this happen? and WHY?

All that post shows is that you don’t know what trafficking is.