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

maestroamado

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?

Marriage is simply a property contract...
I said to a friend at a time when i was living alone, its all right for you guys who can have sex on demand, he said what effen planet are you living on.


Back to topic, i would leave them on the €350 a week and let them work from home for reduced rates.
I was in Malaga a few years ago and they have to wear high-vis jackets by law when working the streets, there on spot fine of €50 but i believe a nice policeman he might do a deal...

Pawwed Rig

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

That is a very poor understanding of history being displayed. The lower classes were ALL considered property and completely disposable. Gender had nothing to do with it.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That is a very poor understanding of history being displayed. The lower classes were ALL considered property and completely disposable. Gender had nothing to do with it.

What males endured, females had it worse. A very recent example was women losing their jobs in the civil service if they got married.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Let me just start giving a few examples of where lack of state/government regulation, their oversights, complacency and dogmatic negligence begins to reveal itself in the industry - its effects transduce into compromised work environment and industry model, mmmkay?

....

1) Massage parlors - I'm a massage dude. Ever since getting worked over by those blind dudes in Thailand (no happy endings) back in the day, I've availed of the benefits of a quality massage.

Dublin - it's basically impossible to get a legit decent massage - cause why?

They've all become brothels.
And they're all more or less under single ownership.

Whether it's one specific "Madam" or a Chinese gang pulling the strings, that's just what matters have deteriorated to.

They've become shameless brothels that shove sexual services in your face and the chances of getting a therapeutic massage with a trained and experienced masseuse - is a non-existent possibility in, it seems just about every parlor.

State intervention and QA (quality assurance) would sharpen up that situation overnight - but regulation is being left to some money hungry Madam or criminal enterprise - right there on busy streets, in broad daylight.

State negligence - put the blinders on and ignore it = this is the result.

It is criminalized currently, and the situation has simply deteriorated further.

Regulation, inspection, quality assurance just like any other recognized and legitimate public industry - is the ONLY way this matter will improve..... but the feminist ministers just put on the blinders and plow ahead, no fucks given.

PS - Netherlands massage parlor model is regulated and inspected just like its sex industry, and if explicit criminality begins to surface (i.e. they become straight up brothels with no massage ethic what so ever), the parlors get shut.


2) Promotion of escort work; Ireland's primary resources are escort advertising, conducted via the interwebs.
There's a couple of craigslist/backpage equivalent sites of which there is absolutely zero regulation.

One semi-legit website, run by a former RUC member now operating out of state, blatantly endorses fraudulence and plagiarism in the name of a higher profit margin, in that sense actually promotes vulnerability and exploitation for all concerned, both advertisers and clients.

As I understand it, girls that advertise from this site are facilitated essentially by criminal gangs - simply because the state refuses to acknowledge this form of work as being legitimate and put legitimate measures in place to enable workers.


Now say in contrast to a states like the Netherlands where sex work is inspected/taxed/policed - I mean, they have issues there as well, it's not perfection, but it's light years ahead of the complete negligence of the Irish state.

Sarcozies

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What males endured, females had it worse. A very recent example was women losing their jobs in the civil service if they got married.

You can have a simplistic view on the other end and say men had it worse. A very recent example was boys losing their limbs, guts and lives as they attempted to storm the beaches of Normandy in a war they were made to fight in.

The majority of human existence for men and women was a struggle. We take that for granted now as we type our opinions while sipping a coffee.

Pawwed Rig

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What males endured, females had it worse. A very recent example was women losing their jobs in the civil service if they got married.

A further poor understanding of history. As it is off topic I won't go into it any further but do a bit of reading. For 1 check the percentage of women killed in any war and compare it to the men killed. Bearing in mind that historically men often had no choice but to goto war.
History viewed through the prism of gender is too narrow a focus to see what actually happened. Looking at it through the prism of 'class' gives a clearer view but still is not adequate to fully understand it.

Sarcozies

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

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

That diversity. You love to see it.

IAMAMORON

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

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.

I understand the concept that prostitution is not every feminists cup of tea, I get it. But I also think that allowing the moral high ground agenda to become a barrier to progressive change is the long way around finding a solution for sex workers. You can't blame feminists for having an agenda, but they need to persuaded to change their viewpoint, I think that is the answer.

It is regrettable that hardline feminists are satisfied with coercing sex workers into illegality for their own one way morals. But I don't think the workers rights will improve either so long as the law is attempting to persecute users as a means to eliminating the practice, I mean this needs to be addressed first and foremost. Feminists need to be informed that contrary legislation is not enabling or curtailing the practice, it is not affected by negative legislation at all. In fact any legislation introduced to curtail prostitution simply drives it further underground and puts workers at risk.

I also do not think the legislation addresses or considers male or transsexual rights also, it seems overly focused on female sex workers. These also needs to be addressed rather than ignored.

The prohibition minority need to accept the responsibility for this. They may think they are winning, but only at the expense of sex workers. Very counterproductive.

c.p.w.g.w

i_surge wrote: »

You need to qualify your statement for accuracy. Most of it consenting as you well know.

I guess listen to the people involved. Most in that industry want it legitimised for their safety.

There is trafficking but it is a side issue, your approach may help them but harms the majority to help the minority, tricky to find the right balance.

Status quo doesn't work for many reasons.

There is also trafficking for many other industries too, especially in the UK

MadYaker

It should be legalised and regulated but it won't be because there's too many idiot voters in this country so politically it's a difficult issue when it should be simple.

Oh, my gawd. This is not about largely male created wars fought by men. More fools them signing up for the likes of two Kings using them as pawns in WW1.

Is any male here saying they'd have rather been born female in the past centuries? They couldn't even bloody vote until after ww1. Look how they are treated still in many counteies. To say women were treated harsher as being simplistic is moronic.

Pawwed Rig

Trafficking is a separate legal issue. I do not see why this would have any bearing on the debate as to whether prostitution should be legal or not. They should be dealt with separately.

Funny how feminism consistently advocates for laws that take away the right of women to choose how to earn a living.

Montage of Feck

Sarcozies wrote: »

That diversity. You love to see it.

Are there not male, trans etc sex workers as well? Very few professional middle class white women involved in the trade i'd imagine.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Funny how feminism consistently advocates for laws that take away the right of women to choose how to earn a living.

Jealousy between women runs deep.

And when it comes to male attention, prepare to get crazy (or in this case, be subject to destructive national policies implemented by emotionally unstable hypocrites).

....

At least that's how I see it.

BorneTobyWilde

You need to put in place a way for those trafficked to raise the alarm. Have website dedicated to it, in every language possible, have commercials on tv, target those trafficking people.
The trouble is people trafficking is conducted by pimps and criminals taking advantage of the situation, it has NOTHING to do with independent sex workers, who through this law change were pushed into the hands of pimps and criminals to provide clients, as their business was hit hard because of that change in law.
Most people won't break the law.

Pawwed Rig

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

The trouble is people trafficking is conducted by pimps and criminals taking advantage of the situation, it has NOTHING to do with independent sex workers, who through this law change were pushed into the hands of pimps and criminals to provide clients, as their business was hit hard because of that change in law.

Go after the organised crime then and let the women earn a living if that is what they choose to do.

bo0li5eumx12kp

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Feminists need to be informed that contrary legislation is not enabling or curtailing the practice, it is not affected by negative legislation at all. In fact any legislation introduced to curtail prostitution simply drives it further underground and puts workers at risk.

They know that.

The reason they're doing it is,

the law is attempting to persecute users

Jealous women, competition for men = craziness.
They do intimidatingly hateful and crazy things - national ministers notwithstanding.

You ever walk about the red light district in Amsterdam?

It's a lesson in sociology.

The intensity of the hatred passing women exhibit for sex workers is intimidating.

It's an industry brimming with volatile emotion (which, when presented and conducted according to standard, makes it the perfect form of TNT to place under the ass historical cultural oppression, as far as I'm concerned)

The prohibition minority need to accept the responsibility for this. They may think they are winning, but only at the expense of sex workers. Very counterproductive.

It's not they won't accept responsibility - it's simply they have their own agenda and when confronted with these facts, reliably play the, "we only want to protect vulnerable women" card.

It's a nice handy line that the general public can buy into, and effectively conceals policy makers/feminists/prohibitions true agenda.


Check this out,

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40028396.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

A leading sex workers rights group was told it could not access government funding unless it accepted that "prostitution is inherently exploitative of vulnerable people".

What government is saying here is, "we'll never support NGO's unless they're actively promoting the idea that sex work is innately exploitation and basically commercialized rape".

.....



....

Welcome to the matrix.

bo0li5eumx12kp

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

The trouble is people trafficking is conducted by pimps and criminals taking advantage of the situation, it has NOTHING to do with independent sex workers, who through this law change were pushed into the hands of pimps and criminals to provide clients, as their business was hit hard because of that change in law.
Most people won't break the law.

Example I like to think of is, that situation I mentioned with the "Madam" currently running all massage parlors in Dublin.

I met her.

She's actually okay, probably a decent business woman with a strong character that can handle all this rowdy gals and run a chain of businesses.

.....

Problem is, when the industry is unregulated, doesn't have quality assurance measures or someone it has to answer to basically - it's like anyone, any business owner;

Of course they're gonna push for lower standards, higher profit margin - the easy life.

This is where government falls down, cause when it's not recognized as legit work, they can't have these involvements and authoritative measures that are necessary for ANY business.

....

Same with the escort website run by the former RUC officer.
Just a little regulation, a little state oversight, a few tweaks here and there that might make the working day a little longer and the profit margin a little lower - but increase standards exponentially.

....

The criminal gangs that chauffeur the escorts I mean, I don't know anything more than what I saw on RTE investigates but, they get the job done apparently - there 100's of gals chauffeured around the country every week with accommodation organized for them (although the dude featured on RTE investigates is currently serving a jail term of ripping off an ATM machine, in addition to social welfare payment fraud - doesn't speak volumes for his reliability);

Just a little additional oversights, licensure introduction with appropriate standards being met to maintain said licenses.

A little government intervention, a little oversight.....

.....

But alas..... this is not the case.

Sarcozies

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh, my gawd. This is not about largely male created wars fought by men. More fools them signing up for the likes of two Kings using them as pawns in WW1.

Is any male here saying they'd have rather been born female in the past centuries? They couldn't even bloody vote until after ww1. Look how they are treated still in many counteies. To say women were treated harsher as being simplistic is moronic.

I don't know if you know this but in 1918, along side the millions of women given the vote, there were millions of working class men that also were given the right to vote the same day.

I think you might be suffering from the apex fallacy. It's where you evaluate a whole group based on the few at the very top. I'm not trying to be condescending, I did the same thing assuming that men just bate the women with sticks 24/7 until sometime in the 60s when women started being treated better. It's unfortunately far more complicated and nuanced than that - like most things in life.

Sarcozies

Sarcozies wrote: »

I don't know if you know this but in 1918, along side the millions of women given the vote, there were millions of working class men that also were given the right to vote the same day.

I think you might be suffering from the apex fallacy. It's where you evaluate a whole group based on the few at the very top. I'm not trying to be condescending, I did the same thing assuming that men just bate the women with sticks 24/7 until sometime in the 60s when women started being treated better. It's unfortunately far more complicated and nuanced than that - like most things in life.

You're taking what I said and saying, men were almost treated as bad. You'll admit that women were treated worse.

As for property, things started to improve from 1882 on wards, but like anything reform took time in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women%27s_Property_Act_1882

Again, who here would rather the lot of females throughout history?

BorneTobyWilde

Can you imagine a law getting changed that effected farmers, but under no circumstance are the farmers asked for their input

'' law change, all farmers must now grow pineapples instead of carrots, potatoes, and cabbage'' comes into effect at midnight.,

This is what they've done to sex workers.

If they asked and engaged with sex workers 1000% of them will tell them the law as it stands hurts them badly, and has lead to a lot of harm towards them. But they don't engage with them, instead you have politicians getting offended and feeling degraded on behalf of sex workers. It's mind boggling the approach to this.
Why not ask them.

biko

Prostitution (selling or buying) should be illegal.
Primping/trafficking should mean prison and deportation where applicable.

biko

biko wrote: »

Prostitution (selling or buying) should be illegal.

Why?

BorneTobyWilde

biko wrote: »

Prostitution (selling or buying) should be illegal.
Primping/trafficking should mean prison and deportation where applicable.

In every other form of trade you pay for a service, whether it's a plumber, or car wash, or a meal, whatever. Should all this be illegal to, to pay for a service?

The_Brood

jaxxx wrote: »

Ignorance of the highest order. Since this law was introduced, violence against sex workers has increased dramatically. But no, according to you that's ok cos it should remain criminalised. Or were you even aware of that? People, like you, who don't do any sort of research into this kind of thing coming out with blanket opinions based on nothing but what you're spoon fed. The reality is that human trafficking and those that choose sex work (and yes, there are those that do choose to it; and no, they're not all addicted to drugs or riddled with STI's, despite what you bigots believe) are not one in the same thing. Yes they're related, but they are themselves distinct from one another. One involves consent. The other slavery. But there are people that are so stuck in their own ways that they refuse to listen to any that has the audacity to differ from their own "bible".

What's really so different about 2 consenting adults having sex for money vs 2 randomers meeting in a club and having a one night stand?

Nobody goes into that profession out of their own free will or sound mind. If it's not human trafficking, it's deep emotional/psychological issues that others are then taking advantage of. That is not "consent," that is people with very limited opportunities being exploited. The best course is to help these people and provide them with the resources and education to restore their lives, not enable their current state. Politicians who vote to enable the latter due to 'woke' twitter mobs are the lowest of the low.

IAMAMORON

biko wrote: »

Prostitution (selling or buying) should be illegal.
Primping/trafficking should mean prison and deportation where applicable.

The moral argument can never be answered. Prostitution is a real thing which will never go away. You cannot ban it, impossible.

Throwing your fingers in your ears and saying ban this disgusting immoral behaviour is what is harming sex workers everyday. This is not a solution, it is merely putting your head in the sandpit.

Meanwhile sex workers are robbed at knifepoint and cannot report it too the Gards for fear of being prosecuted. Lovely.

Crime can never be "deported", it exists globally. Deporting a pimp on Friday just allows a new pimp to take over on Saturday morning. The same bad legislation leads to no solution, people will still be buying sex on Saturday night. Think about it..... By decriminalising the practice you take pimps out of the picture, pimps only have a job because the current law dictates that if the state can't protect workers they need protection from organised crime.

Yurt2

The_Brood wrote: »

Nobody goes into that profession out of their own free will or sound mind. If it's not human trafficking, it's deep emotional/psychological issues that others are then taking advantage of. That is not "consent," that is people with very limited opportunities being exploited. The best course is to help these people and provide them with the resources and education to restore their lives, not enable their current state. Politicians who vote to enable the latter due to 'woke' twitter mobs are the lowest of the low.

I think you would be surprised how lucrative sex work can be for many women engaged in this in Ireland. If you have the constitution for it, it's a damn sight quicker way to clear off a mortgage than a lot of straight professions.

There's an American woman based in Cork who's a sex worker and is a very impressive advocate for sex workers and why the law as it stands is dangerous and rubbish.

Pimping and trafficking were already illegal and offenses dealt with under previous legislation. Frances Fitzgerald and the bizzare purse-lipped feminist / Magdalene nun coalition would handcuff a boner and padlock these women's vaginas if they thought they could.

The state has no business in legislating sexual activities between two (or more) consenting adults. The vast majority of sex workers are free-agents operating off websites anyway I'd be confident.

Pawwed Rig

The_Brood wrote: »

Nobody goes into that profession out of their own free will or sound mind.

Of course they do. There are plenty of independent women that use it as a means of making a living. You are projecting your own thoughts on the practice to everybody.

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

Why?

If no-one is selling then no-one can buy either.
By only making the buying illegal you are just doing something half-arsed.

bo0li5eumx12kp

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Can you imagine a law getting changed that effected farmers, but under no circumstance are the farmers asked for their input

'' law change, all farmers must now grow pineapples instead of carrots, potatoes, and cabbage'' comes into effect at midnight.,

This is what they've done to sex workers.

If they asked and engaged with sex workers 1000% of them will tell them the law as it stands hurts them badly, and has lead to a lot of harm towards them. But they don't engage with them, instead you have politicians getting offended and feeling degraded on behalf of sex workers. It's mind boggling the approach to this.
Why not ask them.

Cause their (the sex workers) practice offends them (the politicians - well, the female ones anyway)?

So long as they can keep it nice and trashy, in the gutter, they feel less threatened by it however.