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

i_surge

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

.....

Is this where the lay persons understanding falls down?

....

Quid-pro-quo fren.

Quid-pro-quo.

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

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

....

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

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

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

At least the pros are streetwise

bo0li5eumx12kp

StringerBell wrote: »

Legalise it, regulate it, tax it.

Tax is probably a large issue as well.

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

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

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

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

B.A._Baracus

Pkiernan wrote: »

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

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

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

jaxxx

Pkiernan wrote: »

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

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

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

Kylta

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

.....

Is this where the lay persons understanding falls down?

....

Quid-pro-quo fren.

Quid-pro-quo.

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

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

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

coinop

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

Man with broke phone

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

tigger123

This thread is really taking some strange turns.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Man with broke phone wrote: »

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

"Fruit picking"?

.....

Is this some kind of new hip-hop slang?

Kylta

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

bo0li5eumx12kp

Kylta wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IAMAMORON

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

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

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

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

Kylta

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

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

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

Eric Cartman

coinop wrote: »

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

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

bo0li5eumx12kp

Kylta wrote: »

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

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

Many many married men use sex workers all the time.

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

....

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

bo0li5eumx12kp

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

I don't see Helen Mac.

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

They seem to be missing someone else also,



....

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

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

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

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

....

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

....

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

Kylta

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

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

....

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

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

bo0li5eumx12kp

Kylta wrote: »

Indulged me please.

Nuh, sorry - too off topic.

IAMAMORON

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

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

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

bo0li5eumx12kp

IAMAMORON wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best comment so far.

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

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

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

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

The irony (/hypocrisy).

AllForIt

I have noticed in recent times every person with any life issue whatsoever wants to promote their life circumstances/experiences to as wide an audience as possible.

Can I just say, for no other reason than to annoy those exact type of people, that I will not spend one waking second of life thinking about the about the concerns of whores, whether they are male or female whores, or of those to avail of their services.

I personally find the idea of it iccky on both sides, either the person who seeks it out or the provider of the service. And frankly I don't want to know. It's not something that has or ever will be something I will engage in and I wish those who do would keep your' personal life choices to yourself. I'm not taking a moral stance on it, I just wan't to you to take it away from my sight. Thanks.

IAMAMORON

AllForIt wrote: »

Can I just say, for no other reason than to annoy those exact type of people, that I will not spend one waking second of life thinking about the about the concerns of whores, whether they are male or female whores, or of those to avail of their services.

I personally find the idea of it iccky on both sides, either the person who seeks it out or the provider of the service. And frankly I don't want to know. It's not something that has or ever will be something I will engage in and I wish those who do would keep your' personal life choices to yourself. I'm not taking a moral stance on it, I just wan't to you to take it away from my sight. Thanks.

All well and good. But would you not prefer to see a system where sex workers are able to achieve more dignity in their work and also more protection from their fellow citizens? I respect that you may not respect the work they do, you are not the only person who has such feelings about sex workers, for one reason or the other. But what I am trying to emphasize is, why should they be coerced into working under adverse legal conditions to suit the moral minority, particularly when many of the high moral ground are sworn to indifference?

Why does the state not support their rights and legally disables them from working? Who gains from such legislation, it certainly is not protecting workers, why is this? As a people are we happy to condemn workers to deal with the black market and the underworld as opposed to facilitating their options? What harm can decriminalisation do?

AllForIt

IAMAMORON wrote: »

All well and good. But would you not prefer to see a system where sex workers are able to achieve more dignity in their work and also more protection from their fellow citizens? I respect that you may not respect the work they do, you are not the only person who has such feelings about sex workers, for one reason or the other. But what I am trying to emphasize is, why should they be coerced into working under adverse legal conditions to suit the moral minority, particularly when many of the high moral ground are sworn to indifference?

Why does the state not support their rights and legally disables them from working? Who gains from such legislation, it certainly is not protecting workers, why is this? As a people are we happy to condemn workers to deal with the black market and the underworld as opposed to facilitating their options? What harm can decriminalisation do?

No. There is no dignity in sex work afaic, therefore I've noting to say about your further comments.

If you want to turn it into a legitimate 'service' then it should be legislated for and treated like any other service. I.e, you pay your tax, there are standards to adhere to, inspectors can check on on your quality of service. A client can make complaints etc etc.

But that's not what they wan't is it. They want it all their own way, make very good money and so on. Why should it be highly paid? Its' an unskilled job.

The mind boggle to think what would happen if it were considered a legitimate service. Brothels on the high street, advertising openly, just like any other business.

The problem is is that service providers are going to provide whether it's against the law or not, and you can't blame those for availing of the service when it is offered. It's the same issue with drugs, the drugs are there, so ppl are going to buy. Both breaking the law.

If that is your personal choice to engage in such activities, fine, I'm not taking a moral judgement on it, but don't expect much sympathy from me when you suffer the negatives consequences of engaging in these type of activities.

IAMAMORON

AllForIt wrote: »

If you want to turn it into a legitimate 'service' then it should be legislated for and treated like any other service. I.e, you pay your tax, there are standards to adhere to, inspectors can check on on your quality of service. A client can make complaints etc etc.

As they do in Germany and the Netherlands, compulsory STD screening, protecting workers and clients, civilised.

AllForIt wrote: »

But that's not what they wan't is it. They want it all their own way, make very good money and so on. Why should it be highly paid? Its' an unskilled job.

I think unskilled is a poor choice of word. I think it takes a certain type to become a worker. The concept that they prefer it illegal is contentious. There would certainly be workers who earn more because it is illegal. But they are risking their lives every day, that's a skill in itself imo.

AllForIt wrote: »

The mind boggle to think what would happen if it were considered a legitimate service. Brothels on the high street, advertising openly, just like any other business.

I don't see the issue here. Legislation could be introduced to ensure that advertising and brothels are tactfully managed. I would rather workers had a safer environment to work in. Red light zones would not bother me. As it stands brothels are everywhere, including in residential areas. Any crude advertising or location of brothels could easily be legislated for, no biggie.

AllForIt wrote: »

The problem is is that service providers are going to provide whether it's against the law or not, and you can't blame those for availing of the service when it is offered. It's the same issue with drugs, the drugs are there, so ppl are going to buy. Both breaking the law.

If that is your personal choice to engage in such activities, fine, I'm not taking a moral judgement on it, but don't expect much sympathy from me when you suffer the negatives consequences of engaging in these type of activities.

Exactly, so why can't we decriminalise a common activity and properly resource it? What 2 consenting adults do together is their own business, so why are we chastising them and forcing them underground?

AllForIt

IAMAMORON wrote: »

As they do in Germany and the Netherlands, compulsory STD screening, protecting workers and clients, civilised.

Well that's something good I didn't know. Is that it? Because if it's going to be regulated that's just the tip of the iceburg. How about healthy and safety rules like restaurants have?

I think unskilled is a poor choice of word. I think it takes a certain type to become a worker. The concept that they prefer it illegal is contentious. There would certainly be workers who earn more because it is illegal. But they are risking their lives every day, that's a skill in itself imo.

I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous. A man wan's a f**k and he's just basically being rented a body. And then you have feminists talking about men thinking of woman as 'objects', which is exactly what a wh*** provides. A body.

I don't see the issue here. Legislation could be introduced to ensure that advertising and brothels are tactfully managed. I would rather workers had a safer environment to work in. Red light zones would not bother me. As it stands brothels are everywhere, including in residential areas. Any crude advertising or location of brothels could easily be legislated for, no biggie.

Well if you don't think there is anything wrong with it I don't know why you think it could be legislated to be hidden. There are sex shops in certain quarters in cities not hidden from children who could be passing by. Why not legal brothels as well, if it's all okay.

Exactly, so why can't we decriminalise a common activity and properly resource it? What 2 consenting adults do together is their own business, so why are we chastising them and forcing them underground?

No this is all wrong. You talking as if we are talking about normal sexual relations. That is not what it is and you know it.

I know it's common these days to criticise men for picking up woman in pubs 'just for sex'. Where the woman is the fair lady and he is just being sexually opportunistic, even where no rape is involved. But even this behaviour is totally fine with me in comparison to wh***ing. That is whole different scene altogether, and I won't fall being drawn into an argument as if they are one in the same.

removing hangups around sex is a good thing.

removing govt interference around sex is a good thing

listening to people working in this area is a good thing

legislation that helps protect and regulate is a good thing

most paid labour involves some use of the body. most attempts to treat sex as totally different usually tell me more about the person making that argument.

bo0li5eumx12kp

AllForIt wrote: »

No. There is no dignity in sex work afaic, therefore I've noting to say about your further comments.

If you want to turn it into a legitimate 'service' then it should be legislated for and treated like any other service. I.e, you pay your tax, there are standards to adhere to, inspectors can check on on your quality of service. A client can make complaints etc etc.

That's the point.

That would be optimized end product, for workers, state and society alike.
Just like you say, standards, code of practice, tax - both tax on income and the benefits of state financing of working areas/environments.

What stands in the way of this?
It's quite simply the actual morality of sex work itself, that it is a heinous and aversive practice.

The sticking point being, that tends to be more or less a hypocrisy as, as we see with Madigan - she condemns in a sense explicit sexuality, yet plays Jilly Cooper on her own watch.

But that's not what they wan't is it. They want it all their own way, make very good money and so on. Why should it be highly paid? Its' an unskilled job.

Again this is where responsibility falls on the state to ensure codes of practice and regulation is introduced just like for any other work or form of work.

That's the whole point and argument that's being made here.
Thus far it's been the "out and sight and out of mind" approach - but reality is, like it or not, it's gonna happen; sex workers gonna sex work, period.
So policy makers need to step up and assume authority.

Again, what may prove difficult about that is, they're (as in, state ministers), are taking on the depraved roles of sex work facilitators in its various forms - organising accommodation, working zones, etc.

Taking over from the traffickers and pimps basically (but without the extortion and exploitation).

The mind boggle to think what would happen if it were considered a legitimate service. Brothels on the high street, advertising openly, just like any other business.

This point might require some consideration.

As the other dude pointed out, Netherlands/Germany have this model.
De Wallen Amsterdam has become a tourist trap, simply because the spectacle of the practice being put up in lights.

It's not a spectator sport.
It's a clandestine endeavour, backstreet, sticky and nasty - just as it needs to be.

So - legitimate service, absolutely.
But a little integrity/insight/discretion should be applied whilst devising said legitimacy.

The problem is, is that service providers are going to provide whether it's against the law or not, and you can't blame those for availing of the service when it is offered. It's the same issue with drugs, the drugs are there, so ppl are going to buy. Both breaking the law.

If that is your personal choice to engage in such activities, fine, I'm not taking a moral judgement on it, but don't expect much sympathy from me when you suffer the negatives consequences of engaging in these type of activities.

You seem to have a notion that you live is a parallel universe and none of these activities affect you - out and sight and out of mind.

Society works in harmony, and each individuals attitude contributes to that.
That collective attitude is called a "culture", or basically a collective endorsement that promotes a given mindset.

The well being of a state is a product of that, and the hypocrisies and thus compromised policies (policies that dictate a culture or national mindset) that the likes of feminist ministers Madigan, Fitzgerald and their lapdog men in parliament promote, do nothing to behoove that situation.

bo0li5eumx12kp

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Exactly, so why can't we decriminalise a common activity and properly resource it? What 2 consenting adults do together is their own business, so why are we chastising them and forcing them underground?

By "we" you mean, state ministers and the Irish government.

And more specifically this push has come exclusively from feminist state ministers.

And the answer is more or less the catty behavior evident between women in any day to day situation; can smile sweetly to each others faces, but they'd cut each others throats open for male attention.

The idea to feminists that men can get sex for money is deplorable.
That sex workers have to live in abject misery with terribly compromised conditions and oppressed life quality is less of a consideration.

Not to mention the overall affect on national policy this hypocritical condemnation causes - but again, catty'ness trumps professionalism (certainly has historically) on this topic.

bo0li5eumx12kp

AllForIt wrote: »

Well that's something good I didn't know. Is that it? Because if it's going to be regulated that's just the tip of the iceburg. How about healthy and safety rules like restaurants have?

Absolutely, and health and safety rules are in place in the Netherlands.
What you're alluding to is full state responsibility for trade just like any other, like the catering/food industry - it has strict regulations.

That's what sex work needs to become, a recognized industry, and legitimate form of work.

To glamourize it essentially, nothing short of that regulation would achieve that.

But can you imagine the blast wave that would send throughout our up until more recently, highly Catholicized Isle?

I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous. A man wan's a f**k and he's just basically being rented a body. And then you have feminists talking about men thinking of woman as 'objects', which is exactly what a wh*** provides. A body.

......

Well if you don't think there is anything wrong with it I don't know why you think it could be legislated to be hidden. There are sex shops in certain quarters in cities not hidden from children who could be passing by. Why not legal brothels as well, if it's all okay.

Difference between sex shops and sexual services should be evident.
And the primary reason is, when advertised so openly it becomes a spectacle to Mr and Mrs general public who come to gawk, not buy.

Clandestined, depraved, sticky, nasty - that's what the exchange of bodily fluids is, not a spectator discipline.
So its facilitating environment must to some degree fall in accordance with this.

No this is all wrong. You talking as if we are talking about normal sexual relations. That is not what it is and you know it.

If someone's just trying to get laid, the quid-pro-quo element is just more direct, that's the only difference.... and YOU know it.

I know it's common these days to criticise men for picking up woman in pubs 'just for sex'. Where the woman is the fair lady and he is just being sexually opportunistic, even where no rape is involved. But even this behaviour is totally fine with me in comparison to wh***ing. That is whole different scene altogether, and I won't fall being drawn into an argument as if they are one in the same.

Yeah, the difference is, men make complete dipshits of themselves whilst trying to get laid socially, lol.
At least with sex workers there's some level of decorum.

Women have been willing to sell sex and men willing to buy long before money was invented.

Women also were treated as property and didn't have as much opportunities for advancement.

I would imagine most women voluntarily involved in prostitution didn't have it as their top choice in careers.

However, as there will always be a demand, supply will follow. I believe that needs to be regulated, the sex workers (terms like whores is a throwback) need to be protected by having access to medical care and for it to be policed. All to be arranged for the benefit of the sex worker.

Anyone involved in sex trafficing should get VERY long jail sentences regardless of whether prostituion is legal or not.

Personally I think you'd want to be a sad b@stard to pay for sex, but there's no point denying it doesn't happen.