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

Eric Cartman

OMM 0000 wrote: »

It's an article by Ruhama and the Immigrant Council. They make **** up.

Once you understand they consider all prostitution "forced" and all foreign born prostitutes "trafficked", their articles stop making sense.

So if a Spanish woman flies to Ireland, wants to be a prostitute, and likes it, according to Ruhama and the Immigrant Council she is being sexually exploited and trafficked.

Ruhama are literally run by the people who ran the Magdalene Laundries (seriously).

Im going to be honest, I don't think thats likely at all. Most 'spanish' prostitutes would actually be Romanian, Bulgarian etc.. they are brought over by Roma gypsy gangs to earn profit for criminal enterprises.

the only sex work I genuinely believe women 'choose' to participate in is the dominatrix/bdsm community which is very niche and those young women who have been manipulated by social media into thinking that selling pictures of themselves online is alright. Which is very damaging to them and their future prospects.

biko

http://collegetribune.ie/exclusive-ucd-student-sex-worker-speaks-to-the-college-tribune/
As per my linked source above, Romanian women now advertise as Spanish to as the punters don't want trafficked women.

Yamanoto

biko wrote: »

Also, it's strange that an NGO that tries to protect women is getting so much stick from you. I'm not sure why.
Do you have a source that Ruhama is not looking out for women?

Both the Good Shepherd Sisters and the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity who ran many of the Magdalene laundries established Ruhama & remain heavily involved in the running of it.

Despite their oft-expressed concerns for the welfare of vulnerable women, both orders steadfastly refused to compensate or even meet with those representing women seeking redress for the abuse suffered at the hands of those religious organisations.

Pretty disgusting stuff tbh.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/laun...group-1.606313

OMM 0000

biko wrote: »

I find it strange that you keep repeating this but have no proof.
Also, it's strange that an NGO that tries to protect women is getting so much stick from you. I'm not sure why.
Do you have a source that Ruhama is not looking out for women?

I've been to some of their conferences. I've seen their conference papers. My opinion is based on knowing Ruhama really well.

My issue is their lies and manipulation. They are an extremist Catholic organisation, they partner with extremist feminist organisations, and the media prints their stories because they are always salicious. Once you know their use of English is different to ours (e.g. all prostitution is forced and exploitation) then they lose all power. You obviously want to believe though.

I would not consider myself pro-prostitution.

Triangle

Bards wrote: »

If kids are going to be allowed to change their gender at 16 then sex between consenting adults is not a crime and should not be criminalised

They can change it on paper at 16, not medically. It's a huge difference.

OMM 0000

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im going to be honest, I don't think thats likely at all. Most 'spanish' prostitutes would actually be Romanian, Bulgarian etc.. they are brought over by Roma gypsy gangs to earn profit for criminal enterprises.

That's not true though.

Have you ever met any prostitutes?

I interviewed many (including Spaniards). You should talk to some instead of pretending Spanish prostitutes are secretly Romanians who were shipped in by Roma gangs.

Eric Cartman

OMM 0000 wrote: »

That's not true though.

Have you ever met any prostitutes?

I interviewed many (including Spaniards). You should talk to some instead of pretending Spanish prostitutes are secretly Romanians who were shipped in by Roma gangs.

I know a lot of Romanians, its quite common for gypsy gangs to go to poor areas and offer families to take their daughters to Ireland / UK / Netherlands for a better life, promises of money and a good life. In reality its a slave trade in prostitution.

OMM 0000

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I know a lot of Romanians, its quite common for gypsy gangs to go to poor areas and offer families to take their daughters to Ireland / UK / Netherlands for a better life, promises of money and a good life. In reality its a slave trade in prostitution.

So they women are brought to Ireland, tricked into being prostitutes, and they don't run away or ask a customer for help?

biko

Yamanoto wrote: »

Pretty disgusting stuff tbh.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/laun...group-1.606313

Finally a source, thanks!

Yes, the Magdalene Laundries is a dark past for Ireland but the link between them and Ruhama is only that it's the same organisations behind them.
And the money discrepancies alluded to in the article doesn't help.

Is the solution a non-religious organisation and transparency about the financials?

bo0li5eumx12kp

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I know a lot of Romanians, its quite common for gypsy gangs to go to poor areas and offer families to take their daughters to Ireland / UK / Netherlands for a better life, promises of money and a good life. In reality its a slave trade in prostitution.

Yeah again this seems to harken to the "woman chained to bed" profile.

Seems as we "all know lots of Romanians", I throw in my 0.02 here also and say, "I know lots of Romanians", gals, mostly in the Netherlands that go there specifically to work as prostitutes and, firstly - lol - they kiss someone's hand for the opportunity to work in the Netherlands.

And just like the example I gave - they can do whatever they want when they get there, work whatever they choose, live however they want.

But money is ridiculous and ridiculously easy in prostitution.
House paid for, car paid for etc.

.....

This idea that gypsy merchants are luring vulnerable young gals away from their sweet home life with the temptation of candy and gingerbread - is frankly absurd.

Do I have a source for this?

Just myself.
Just years of knowing, living around (in one instance, living with) such individuals.

They're not working under duress of any kind or being "forced to repay debts".

They're free to come, go, do as they please.

Do they have the obligations that the rest of society has?
i.e. have to work, earn, pay bills etc?

Of course.

But again the quoted post makes allusions to forced labour, exploitation etc, and some kind of associated misery that this 3rd world'esque imagery would conjure up.

........

I'm sorry but, you got to understand, given my years of experience with this industry and with these people, not only the LACK of lifestyle duress they're subject to - but the actual freedom their lifestyle gives them - such statements can only make me go,

Eric Cartman

OMM 0000 wrote: »

So they women are brought to Ireland, tricked into being prostitutes, and they don't run away or ask a customer for help?

Dude.... this is just boiling the trafficking industry down to 'tricks and why don't they run away'

there is clearly a complete lack of understanding of the control these scum have over these women.

OMM 0000

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Dude.... this is just boiling the trafficking industry down to 'tricks and why don't they run away'

there is clearly a complete lack of understanding of the control these scum have over these women.

No, the issue is your fantasy falls apart when you think it through for two seconds.

The idea that a man, thinking he's getting a Spanish prostitute, walks into a room and sees a Romanian chained to a wall and thinks "ah yeah this is totally normal and not something from a horror movie" is outright delusional.

The nicer alternative, that they've taken her passport and that somehow stops her from telling a client or the police, also does not make sense. No woman will let herself be raped by men every day because "oh crap where's my passport".

bo0li5eumx12kp

biko wrote: »

Finally a source, thanks!

Yes, the Magdalene Laundries is a dark past for Ireland but the link between them and Ruhama is only that it's the same organisations behind them.
And the money discrepancies alluded to in the article doesn't help.

Is the solution a non-religious organisation and transparency about the financials?

This is where your understanding falls short.

The link between them is they share same ideals, same conventions, same instabilities.

If it was a non-religious organisation with non-feminist ideals and a non-oppressive covert agenda, then for certain their entire business framework would be incomparable to what you see.

Speaking about transparency with financials?

Their agendas are public manipulation by way of pushing sympathetic ideas of exploitation, subsequent government funding to, "help these broken people out of destitute circumstances" (way to go magdalene laundries - the 100's of babies your buried really reinforces your kind hearted ways), whilst really pocketing the money for themselves as reports have clearly outlined - they give basically next to NOTHING back to sex workers in terms of genuine support despite hundreds of thousands in NGO government funding every year.

....

And again - I don't think the likes of Simon Harris and our boy Leo are without blame here.

They stand idly by effectively allowing this cultural oppression to transpire unchecked (which is my main dog in this race - the cultural implications of sex work).

Emotionally unstable women gonna emotionally unstable - but Harris, Varadkar - to me they're the main shot callers in Irish parliament - they're allowing the department of justice to flaunt this incompetency unchecked.....?

OMM 0000

biko wrote: »

Yes, the Magdalene Laundries is a dark past for Ireland but the link between them and Ruhama is only that it's the same organisations behind them.

Come on man... that's outrageous gymnastics... it's like saying HIV doesn't cause AIDS because the only link between them is the virus.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Dude.... this is just boiling the trafficking industry down to 'tricks and why don't they run away'

there is clearly a complete lack of understanding of the control these scum have over these women.

Do you have a source for that?

...

I'm curious cause, whilst gangs act as chauffeurs, organize accommodation, facilitators of prostitution of course - common knowledge - the idea they have "control over these women" in a coercive manner is just something I've really yet to see.

I'm open to correction, which is why I ask for a source? (if it's some nuns conjuring up "facts" it doesn't count, but I'm still open to hearing/reading it).

biko

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Come on man... that's outrageous gymnastics... it's like saying HIV doesn't cause AIDS because the only link between them is the virus.

It's not.

I hope that these organisation after causing so much grief with the Magdalene Laundries are now vetted and monitored properly by the HSE before being allowed to deal with women again.

bo0li5eumx12kp

biko wrote: »

It's not.

I hope that these organisation after causing so much grief with the Magdalene Laundries are now vetted and monitored properly by the HSE before being allowed to deal with women again.

Maybe this is the bro-psychologist in me talking but, "vetting" an organization that's run on deceit, malice, duplicity and an abhorrence for a working group within their own gender, is probably going to yield an outcome of deceit, malice, duplicity and continuity of abhorrence for a working group within their own gender (as it has been doing right up until current day - pregnant escort in jail etc - this is magdalene laundry profile contemporarily validated by governance and hard at work).

Look at Rachel Morans twitter profile - that's all the vetting you need.

Hell look at Francis Fitzgeralds mug shot - a picture paints a thousand word, lol.

Read Josepha Madigans "racy" novel and then her subsequent claims that sexual education has no place in school curriculums - tell me oppression isn't on her agenda whilst self inflation is, the hypocrite.

Look at Simon Harris/Leo Varadkars continued placation of these women with whom it's important that maintain good governmental relations and come to communal agreements with (and I absolutely support women in government), but their lack of active governance on an issue simply cause they don't want to step on some toes....?

Pffff - by no means do I support that historical "alpha male" domineering authoritative stance but, them dudes really need to anti-up on this issue.
Light a fire under Helen Mac's ass, at the very least.

Vic_08

biko wrote: »

The last report by Dr Geoffrey Shannon does not recommend a change in the law but you and others in this thread wants prostitution to be legal.
Who will your approach benefit most? The sellers, or the buyers?

How many times does it have to be said, pushing the sex trade further into the black market primarily benefits the organised criminals exploiting it for their financial gain. Criminalising just the clients doesn't do anything for the sellers as the trade must still be conducted illicitly.

Reversing this law as well as changing the Victorian laws against brothel keeping would be a step in the right direction, both for the well-being of sex workers and exploitation victims.

Without considerably more enforcement and legal penalties against organised crime/trafficking/exploitatitive pimping there will not be a sea-change in these crimes no matter what the law says but at least fully decriminalising sex work will mean those in the trade both willingly and forced or exploited will know they have no fear of criminal action from the authorities as they do currently. There will be no ambiguity over the role of the Gardai in enforcing laws targeting traffickers not prostitutes.

The report you posted mentions the fact that several sex workers have been prosecuted and convicted inder the current laws although for reasons best known to the good Doctor and the report's backers it supports that legislation rather than proposing it be changed to stop the criminal prosecution of those they classify as victims.

The pathetically low numbers of prosecutions under this law tells it's own story, the trade continues regardless of words written by the Oireachtas just as every other illegal vice in Ireland does because the chances of any legal reprecussion are ridiculously low no matter what the law is.

OMM 0000

biko wrote: »

It's not.

I hope that these organisation after causing so much grief with the Magdalene Laundries are now vetted and monitored properly by the HSE before being allowed to deal with women again.

Well, they haven't been vetted. They just make up **** constantly and don't have the support of the Gardai as their data conflicts with each other.

It got so bad Ruhama were lobbying the government to allow all prostitution evidence to be based on what Ruhama says rather than what the Gardai say. This was a few years ago.

They are mad but it's such an emotive subject it's very hard to go against what they say.

Yamanoto

biko wrote: »

Finally a source, thanks!

Yes, the Magdalene Laundries is a dark past for Ireland but the link between them and Ruhama is only that it's the same organisations behind them.
And the money discrepancies alluded to in the article doesn't help.

Is the solution a non-religious organisation and transparency about the financials?

Actually the solution is an organisation shorn of ideological bias, that tells the truth about the lot of sex workers in Ireland and acts in the best interests of those who require support.

One has to have a grudging admiration for Ruhama's PR machine.

Constantly conflating the selling of sex with human-trafficking and child prostitution seems to have yielded results for them - it's undoubtedly gained traction among many members of the public and policy-makers alike.

Essentially, they have a moral objection to the selling of sex in any form, even where that transaction is entered into freely.

Given the more progressive social climate we now enjoy, it's expedient for them to shift the emphasis away from their religious and moral objections and instead frame the argument in such a way that will resonate with the values of people in modern Ireland today - human rights, gender equality, child protection etc.

It's a fundamentally dishonest approach and it stymies reasonable and reasoned discussion of possible solutions to an issue that simply isn't going away.

One eyed Jack

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Well, they haven't been vetted. They just make up **** constantly and don't have the support of the Gardai as their data conflicts with each other.

It got so bad Ruhama were lobbying the government to allow all prostitution evidence to be based on what Ruhama says rather than what the Gardai say. This was a few years ago.

They are mad but it's such an emotive subject it's very hard to go against what they say.

It’s really not an emotive subject at all. Genuinely, how many people do you imagine give a shìte about what Ruhama are or what they do or claim to do? I’d safely say there’s about an equivalent number give a shìte about prostitutes and prostitution.

The absolute hand-wringing nonsense in this article is as blatant an attempt at emotive rhetoric and identity politics as anything Ruhama, ICI, NWCI or any of the other 80 or so women’s organisations opposed to prostitution could come out with -


Covid-19: Irish Sex Workers Ask for Government Support


“Sex workers in the casual economy”, why not just call it what it is? Prostitution and people trying to make money for themselves on the black economy.

Of course one could always adopt the angle of owning it and telling people unpack their whorephobia, because there are women who love being treated like shìt and people shouldn’t be discriminating :rolleyes:

Certainly a different picture to the whole “the majority of women are willing” nonsense, when part of the core argument of women in the sex industry’s argument for Government support consists of pointing out that women are forced to make a choice between starvation and prostitution -


"It is easy to say you shouldn't be doing sex work, but to stick by that requires a certain level of privilege," she said, “if you're facing starvation or you can't feed your children what are you going to do?

"Organisations like Ruhama can't understand that sex work is often a result of poverty and inequality, and with all the money they get from the Government and the influence they have with Gardaí, they go fighting vulnerable groups," she continued. “That’s what it comes down to.”


It’s as though they imagine people really are ignorant or something, or that they aren’t completely aware of what the industry is actually like behind the veneer of bullshìt.

OMM 0000

There's a thing here in Asia where women seek sugar daddies on websites. It's made out to be cute and something great for students. It's absolutely amazing how a bit of branding suddenly doesn't make it prostitution.

c.p.w.g.w

OMM 0000 wrote: »

There's a thing here in Asia where women seek sugar daddies on websites. It's made out to be cute and something great for students. It's absolutely amazing how a bit of branding suddenly doesn't make it prostitution.

Only fans is something similar too here...Now i have no problem with that, but the hypocrisy

Eric Cartman

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Only fans is something similar too here...Now i have no problem with that, but the hypocrisy

Thats it, its a sick path of hypersexualising young women and making sex a monetary transaction.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Yamanoto wrote: »

Actually the solution is an organisation shorn of ideological bias, that tells the truth about the lot of sex workers in Ireland and acts in the best interests of those who require support.

One has to have a grudging admiration for Ruhama's PR machine.

Constantly conflating the selling of sex with human-trafficking and child prostitution seems to have yielded results for them - it's undoubtedly gained traction among many members of the public and policy-makers alike.

Essentially, they have a moral objection to the selling of sex in any form, even where that transaction is entered into freely.

Given the more progressive social climate we now enjoy, it's expedient for them to shift the emphasis away from their religious and moral objections and instead frame the argument in such a way that will resonate with the values of people in modern Ireland today - human rights, gender equality, child protection etc.

It's a fundamentally dishonest approach and it stymies reasonable and reasoned discussion of possible solutions to an issue that simply isn't going away.

I agree with everything you've said here, except use of the word "stymies".

.....

"It ................ reasonable and reasoned discussion"

....

It "condemns", "blackens", "puts in a league with Satan worshippers";

"Contradict us and you're nothing more than filth!!"

lol

Every report that shower have ever written, that's simply the impression made; "all trafficked, all extorted, pimps wielding floggers and the threat of siblings at gunpoint".

When that motion was passed in parliament it was a landslide, "outlaw the practice".

Thing is though, slingshot effect.

It hasn't hurt anyone (well, except for the pregnant escort in jail and the pensioner), obstructed anything, improved nothing.

But given the exposure its created, could - 3 years further on - it now create a situation where, having recognized this, policy makers may examine the opposite-end-of-the-spectrum approach and consider state intervention and oversight moving forward?
(i.e. what it really, desperately needs, and what will benefit our fair little isle, out of sight!!)

That to me is the crux of the argument approaching this review.

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s really not an emotive subject at all. Genuinely, how many people do you imagine give a shìte about what Ruhama are or what they do or claim to do? I’d safely say there’s about an equivalent number give a shìte about prostitutes and prostitution.

lol - what cloud are you living on?

You don't think women and housewives that depend on the use of sexual leverage would protest the idea that men can attain it without having to jump through all the conventional hoops?

.....

The rest speaks for itself, you're away with the fairies if you believe what's in the quotation box.

The absolute hand-wringing nonsense in this article is as blatant an attempt at emotive rhetoric and identity politics as anything Ruhama, ICI, NWCI or any of the other 80 or so women’s organisations opposed to prostitution could come out with -


Covid-19: Irish Sex Workers Ask for Government Support


“Sex workers in the casual economy”, why not just call it what it is? Prostitution and people trying to make money for themselves on the black economy.

Condemnation, we get it - you don't like sex work - but if they were taxed like any other business they'd have the same rights as everyone else.

Of course one could always adopt the angle of owning it and telling people unpack their whorephobia, because there are women who love being treated like shìt and people shouldn’t be discriminating :rolleyes:

Sarcasm is for winners pal.

Certainly a different picture to the whole “the majority of women are willing” nonsense, when part of the core argument of women in the sex industry’s argument for Government support consists of pointing out that women are forced to make a choice between starvation and prostitution -

Yes, the hypocrisy runs amongst women and guess what, some women are sex workers.
Some sex workers are hypocritical of their own trade.
Some use it to make money, whilst condemning it, hating their clients, hating men etc - it's nothing to do with the nature of the trade - it's just another reflection of emotional volatility (they could be housewives, they could be government executives, they'd still feel the same way) and yes, as outlined - sex workers (current, active, advertising) themselves can be just as prone to that hypocrisy also.

"It is easy to say you shouldn't be doing sex work, but to stick by that requires a certain level of privilege," she said, “if you're facing starvation or you can't feed your children what are you going to do?

"Organisations like Ruhama can't understand that sex work is often a result of poverty and inequality, and with all the money they get from the Government and the influence they have with Gardaí, they go fighting vulnerable groups," she continued. “That’s what it comes down to.”

This quote is taken out of context, being used to support your former quote; what's actually being said is, stop fucking with our income you hypocritical malcontents.

It’s as though they imagine people really are ignorant or something, or that they aren’t completely aware of what the industry is actually like behind the veneer of bullshìt.

The common man/woman buys into the propaganda/stigma fairly easily, i.e. they in actual fact, HAVE no clue the true dynamics of the industry.

Zero.

They're happy to eat up any victimization stories thrown their way, women for obvious reasons and men cause if they don't agree with their woman, they won't be getting "any" for a while.

BorneTobyWilde

If they put all this effort into stopping sex trafficking they'd have made a difference, but all the effort is put into pushing sex working into the hands of criminals , ie every customer is one under the law.
They refuse to engage with sex workers, but instead use trafficked people as their evidence as to why the law should remain the same. But independent sex workers and those trafficked are complete opposites.
The should bring in a VERY high sentence for traffickers, and in the same time protect and give the same worker rights to sex workers, as they do every other worker in ireland

One eyed Jack

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

lol - what cloud are you living on?

You don't think women and housewives that depend on the use of sexual leverage would protest the idea that men can attain it without having to jump through all the conventional hoops?

.....

The rest speaks for itself, you're away with the fairies if you believe what's in the quotation box.

No, I don’t imagine women or men actually have such an immature mentality.

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

Condemnation, we get it - you don't like sex work - but if they were taxed like any other business they'd have the same rights as everyone else.

But sure they don’t want to pay tax? Even you acknowledge that they’re saying to Government that they want support, but they don’t want to have to pay tax like everyone else who pays tax because they don’t want malcontents fcuking with the income they get from fcuking malcontents! :pac:

Nah, it’s not condemnation at all, it’s an unwillingness to entertain bullshìt.

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

Yes, the hypocrisy runs amongst women and guess what, some women are sex workers.
Some sex workers are hypocritical of their own trade.
Some use it to make money, whilst condemning it, hating their clients, hating men etc - it's nothing to do with the nature of the trade - it's just another reflection of emotional volatility (they could be housewives, they could be government executives, they'd still feel the same way) and yes, as outlined - sex workers (current, active, advertising) themselves can be just as prone to that hypocrisy also.

It’s everything to do with the nature of the trade - it’s shìt, and they know it’s shìt, and they know the general public knows it’s shìt, so they try and package it up in euphemisms like “sex work” and push it through the paradigm of social justice, playing the victim and all the rest of it like they think anyone is buying their disingenuous nonsense.

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

This quote is taken out of context, being used to support your former quote; what's actually being said is, stop fucking with our income you hypocritical malcontents.

What’s actually being said is that they imagine women’s only two choices in life are starvation and prostitution, as though those are actually women’s only choices, when reality would obviously suggest otherwise. Women are entitled to State support, prostitutes aren’t. They’re trying to create a personal identity as a prostitute and nobody’s buying it, and they’re sore because they tried to put Government over a barrel, and Government were having none of it - they want support from the State, the State is entirely within it’s right to point out they’re entitled to the same supports as anyone else. The State isn’t under any obligation to support or facilitate prostitution.

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

The common man/woman buys into the propaganda/stigma fairly easily, i.e. they in actual fact, HAVE no clue the true dynamics of the industry.

Zero.

They're happy to eat up any victimization stories thrown their way, women for obvious reasons and men cause if they don't agree with their woman, they won't be getting "any" for a while.

Whatever you need to tell yourself I guess.

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I don’t imagine women or men actually have such an immature mentality.

Welcome to the real world pal.

But sure they don’t want to pay tax? Even you acknowledge that they’re saying to Government that they want support, but they don’t want to have to pay tax like everyone else who pays tax because they don’t want malcontents fcuking with the income they get from fcuking malcontents! :pac:

Who wants to pay tax?
Nobody.
Who wants the government taking a slice of their income?

If it was legitimized and the benefits of tax compliance felt however, working conditions etc, they'd still moan about paying tax cause who wouldn't?
But it'd be a better system.

And more importantly, tax compliance would put working gals in the same bracket as every other working denomination - legitimate.

All those feminist protestors would have to eat crow for perpetuity, and how great would that be?

It’s everything to do with the nature of the trade - it’s shìt, and they know it’s shìt, and they know the general public knows it’s shìt, so they try and package it up in euphemisms like “sex work” and push it through the paradigm of social justice, playing the victim and all the rest of it like they think anyone is buying their disingenuous nonsense.

Pffff - tell that to the gal who was scrubbing toilets for 8 euros an hour (before tax), taking shit from some frustrated boss, probably being sexually harassed or having to do "favours" for the hotel manager if she was remotely attractive (yes I've seen it) - who subsequently magnified her pay 10x for for a fraction of the work and essentially being self employed.

What’s actually being said is that they imagine women’s only two choices in life are starvation and prostitution, as though those are actually women’s only choices, when reality would obviously suggest otherwise.

What it meant to say was, "two choices are prostitution or working some bum job they hate and function poorly at for lousy pay".

It's whatever, let them make that choice. Plenty chicks like to do it, they're happy in sex work.

Women are entitled to State support, prostitutes aren’t. They’re trying to create a personal identity as a prostitute and nobody’s buying it, and they’re sore because they tried to put Government over a barrel, and Government were having none of it - they want support from the State, the State is entirely within it’s right to point out they’re entitled to the same supports as anyone else. The State isn’t under any obligation to support or facilitate prostitution.

I don't know where to stand on this one, I'm not an economist.
If they were legit and paying tax however it'd be a no brainer.

What I do know is, chicks working massage parlors don't want to return to work now cause they're getting a cool 310 weekly for doing nothing.

.....

Last line, bolded - they've used the morality defense to dodge this obligation simply cause it's to hot (or dirty) to handle, maybe they don't want to look like perv's by showing support for it as a legit trade...?

The whole point of this thread is to address that matter.

The fact they're not facilitating it as a legit trade is negligence, and more than that it's keeping Irish culture stuck in the 15th century.

Let the feminists and "morality" protestors get burned, force them to self improve etc.

One eyed Jack

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

Last line, bolded - they've used the morality defense to dodge this obligation simply cause it's to hot (or dirty) to handle, maybe they don't want to look like perv's by showing support for it as a legit trade...?

The whole point of this thread is to address that matter.

The fact they're not facilitating it as a legit trade is negligence, and more than that it's keeping Irish culture stuck in the 15th century.

Let the feminists and "morality" protestors get burned, force them to self improve etc.

It’s not negligence. Negligence would be letting people off to do what they like with who they like and the State taking a “hands off” approach.

It’s not that prostitution is “too hot to handle” or anything else, it’s simply that it’s just not worth it from either a financial or social perspective - regulation and oversight would actually cost the State more than any revenue taxation would bring in. Even in Germany where there are half a million prostitutes and it’s all perfectly legal, only 2% of those people are registered and licensed and and pay any tax on their income.

It’s also nothing to do with keeping Ireland in the 15th century or any other century - throughout time and in most modern societies today - prostitution has a shìt reputation. They campaign for respect and all the rest of it as though what they do should be regarded as a legitimate profession, but generally speaking, society doesn’t care one way or the other about prostitutes really, and society cares even less about the people who pay to have sex with anyone. They’re generally regarded as the sad cases and the pervs who need to improve themselves.

That’s why there’s generally no support for the sex industry - because most people don’t regard anyone paying for sex or anyone being paid to have sex, as someone worth giving a shìt about. They’re entirely ambivalent about it. That’s why those campaigning for or against prostitution don’t get much support from the general public either way. It’s simply a fact that most people don’t care about the sex industry.