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

Chris_Heilong

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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

It also give the girl an unrealistically inflated sense of her own self worth.

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

What you did there...... I see it. :pac:

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.

I'm not an economist (I suspect you aren't either), don't know the stats, apart from the undeniably evident effect I've seen sex work have on culture and mentality.

These stats you're quoting, who knows if they're legit or "legit", introducing licensure (for chauffeurs/managers/handlers) and inspection for a trade already in full swing in every capacity would not outweigh additional revenue from taxation - in addition to increases in the innate safety measures and preclusion of potential trafficking etc that would go hand in hand with state oversight.

As for a "social perspective", I happen to know it would be "worth it" (when it's done from the point of view of governmentally sanctioned, policed, quality assured etc) - I've seen its effects in full color.

It's wonderful.

.....

It's also fun and fabulous.

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.

If you're talking about 1970's New York bitches and pimps lining the streets, of course - and the word you're looking for is "trashy", which it is/was.

Thus adequate state investment, legitimization and essentially glamorization - that's what makes the societal impact, for the simple reason that it restructures how society thinks, its "big brain" if you will.

....

The bolded part feels like a mantra you probably repeat to yourself, lol.

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.

Your fact spinning has just developed a mind of its own.

Government invest about a half a mill annually in suppression campaigners and those ministers that back it, they're people/society, just like you and me.
Their mentality is a reflection of the status quo, even speaks for it in its own right - they hate it, they want to suppress it, eradicate it if possible whilst touting a "holier than thou" facade all the while.

Face it pal, sex work is a part of who we are and how we function.
Whether you're paying a prostitute, paying for some gals drinks at the bar, family provision in some capacity so your wife will let you climb up on her a couple times a week etc - it's all quid pro quo.

To contend otherwise is to live in denial, and to overlook that fact perpetuates the misery and trashy component which facilitates exploitation and criminality, and THAT muh fren, is the current issue in contention.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

It also give the girl an unrealistically inflated sense of her own self worth.

You think allowing someone to sell their body for money gives them an additional feeling of self worth? lol

One eyed Jack

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

As for a "social perspective", I happen to know it would be "worth it" (when it's done from the point of view of governmentally sanctioned, policed, quality assured etc) - I've seen its effects in full color.

It's wonderful.

.....

It's also fun and fabulous.

Yeah they tried that whole Government sanctioned, policed and quality controlled effort in other countries already, and it’s because they tried it that they’re now rolling back on it because it actually hasn’t turned out to be all the fun and fabulousness you speak of at all. It hasn’t done anything to change the perception of prostitution as anything other than a shìtty industry that most people want nothing to do with.

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

If you're talking about 1970's New York bitches and pimps lining the streets, of course - and the word you're looking for is "trashy", which it is/was.

Thus adequate state investment, legitimization and essentially glamorization - that's what makes the societal impact, for the simple reason that it restructures how society thinks, its "big brain" if you will.

....

The bolded part feels like a mantra you probably repeat to yourself, lol.


Your fact spinning has just developed a mind of its own.

Government invest about a half a mill annually in suppression campaigners and those ministers that back it, they're people/society, just like you and me.
Their mentality is a reflection of the status quo, even speaks for it in its own right - they hate it, they want to suppress it, eradicate it if possible whilst touting a "holier than thou" facade all the while.

I get where you’re coming from, basically if everyone thought like you, society would be better. That works only if you can manage to ignore the fact that the vast majority of people in any given society just don’t think much of prostitution and don’t think much of anyone involved in prostitution. It’s just not all the fun and fabulousness you speak of at all, when the average amount of time a person spends doing prostitution is about four years, and they exit the industry with a whole host of mental health issues and health issues and all the rest of it.

The “big brain” stuff already happens, and that’s why Government piss away about half a mill on the likes of organisations like Ruhama and so on. Could the same money be better spent? Absolutely. Would it be better spent on facilitating prostitution? Nope, I don’t think so. With all the big money prostitutes are making according to themselves anyway they don’t need Government support, and I certainly see no reason to spend public funds on people’s private hobbies.

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

Face it pal, sex work is a part of who we are and how we function.
Whether you're paying a prostitute, paying for some gals drinks at the bar, family provision in some capacity so your wife will let you climb up on her a couple times a week etc - it's all quid pro quo.

To contend otherwise is to live in denial, and to overlook that fact perpetuates the misery and trashy component which facilitates exploitation and criminality, and THAT muh fren, is the current issue in contention.

Might be part of who you are, and that’s fair enough, but it’s certainly not part of who I am. There’s nothing quid pro quo about buying a girl drinks at the bar or marriage or being in a relationship or any of the rest of it that comes with a rider that says sex is expected in return, for anything. There’s no overlooking facts in saying that there’s no comparison between normal human relationships and prostitution.

Prostitution comes with the misery built in already, payment just offers temporary relief from that misery, but it’s always there. The issue in contention is of course the exploitative and criminal element of it which will always be there, because offering people temporary relief from their miserable lives is a really, really profitable venture. Fools and their money LG, y’know?

BorneTobyWilde

The fact only 3 people have been caught breaking the law is confirmation that the whole thing is now run by pimps and criminals.It's widespread, and underground, congrats.

IAMAMORON

I feel getting bogged down into the argument about trafficked workers is really playing into the hyperbole of the high moral ground brigade. They prefer to cast aspersions on any sex worker. The argument about coercion and trafficking is used to deflect reality to suit their own narrative.

The truth about decriminalising is that even if it is achieved trafficking will still exist and become an issue. In Germany and Holland workers can not work legitimately until they are 18. What you find is younger teenage workers congregating outside police stations adjacent to red light regions, as evidence in St Pauli in Hamburg. In Germany landlords face prison if a teenage worker is found operating at their property. To counteract this teenage workers seek protection from police.

I am rambling , but I am trying to say that you need to productively fix the things you can fix when you can. Right now there is an opportunity to protect sex workers by changing the law. This might not stop trafficking, but it is better than no laws to protect workers. By dicriminalising you also free up dept justice resources to proactively combat trafficking.

The current laws don't protect anyone and essentially are patronising users and workers with the threat of prosecution, in essence persecuting them for the criminality of others, thats not fair. What makes me seethe is the ignorance and intransigence of religious groups who have no agenda other than banning the practice, even at the expense of workers, its worse than a throwback to the 1950's.

Meanwhile workers get robbed, raped or ripped off because they are acting outside of the law. It is frustrating.

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah they tried that whole Government sanctioned, policed and quality controlled effort in other countries already, and it’s because they tried it that they’re now rolling back on it because it actually hasn’t turned out to be all the fun and fabulousness you speak of at all. It hasn’t done anything to change the perception of prostitution as anything other than a shìtty industry that most people want nothing to do with.

Care to mention a few names or link a few sources?

What you mean to say is, "its legitimization has done nothing to make feminists and feminist groups hate it any less", and in terms of not changing its "image" - like jealous girls bitching about their promiscuous friend, they're never going to stop trashing her just cause big brother said "hey, it's cool if you want to sleep around. It's part of our culture now".

i.e. its never going to be the trade you want your daughter to end up in, but then you also don't want her doing drugs and getting a train rode on her by the alpha frat-house boys.
Your precious little angel going out, partying and getting railed - that's just a part of life that some can enjoy, and most have to put the blinders on cause it's just too emotive to see or tolerate hearing about.

Easier to pretend it doesn't happen, and for that reason sex work is in many respects a "fuck you" to the man, or the woman - and most especially, to the hypocrites.
Legitimization will simply ensure they can't ignore it any longer.

I get where you’re coming from, basically if everyone thought like you, society would be better. That works only if you can manage to ignore the fact that the vast majority of people in any given society just don’t think much of prostitution and don’t think much of anyone involved in prostitution. It’s just not all the fun and fabulousness you speak of at all, when the average amount of time a person spends doing prostitution is about four years, and they exit the industry with a whole host of mental health issues and health issues and all the rest of it.

Same point, phrased differently. Working/progressive society "don't think much of prostitution" - aside from via number crunching 1 in 10 Irish men use them regularly - escorts only, not counting massage parlors.

Legitimized tomorrow, endorsed as part of our culture it'd be the talk of the entire country - not exactly a sign that "no one thinks much about it".

The mental health issue etc spin was part of the suppression campaign, "we don't buy it etc" - they were using reports of violence from sub saharan african based prostitutes and passing them off like that type of thing happens in our own backyard.
Typical of their general tact - lie to manipulate.

The “big brain” stuff already happens, and that’s why Government piss away about half a mill on the likes of organisations like Ruhama and so on. Could the same money be better spent? Absolutely. Would it be better spent on facilitating prostitution? Nope, I don’t think so. With all the big money prostitutes are making according to themselves anyway they don’t need Government support, and I certainly see no reason to spend public funds on people’s private hobbies.

Wut?

Most people still think like you: out of sight, out of mind, prostitutes are damaged people, trash from poor backgrounds etc.
Kept in the gutter, you don't get that cultural impact.

They (as in, the industry) don't need government support/intervention?
So the whole organised crime and lack of regulation thing is what, hearsay?
The program RTE investigates compiled, were they using fake actors for that?
Cause if they were, someone needs to tell those criminals they were impersonated on national television.

Might be part of who you are, and that’s fair enough, but it’s certainly not part of who I am. There’s nothing quid pro quo about buying a girl drinks at the bar or marriage or being in a relationship or any of the rest of it that comes with a rider that says sex is expected in return, for anything. There’s no overlooking facts in saying that there’s no comparison between normal human relationships and prostitution.

Oh really?
Maybe I've just been living my life wrong up until now then?
Tomorrow, I'm just going to stand in the high street and wait for a series of women whom will undoubtedly approach offering to fulfill my every male physical need and fantasy - which they will almost certainly do without question or expectation of anything in return - according to your logic at least.

lol

Posts like this are the reason marijuana + internet browsing is a bad idea.

Prostitution comes with the misery built in already, payment just offers temporary relief from that misery, but it’s always there. The issue in contention is of course the exploitative and criminal element of it which will always be there, because offering people temporary relief from their miserable lives is a really, really profitable venture. Fools and their money LG, y’know?

Again this is typical propaganda, therefore typical societal opinion (common man just eats this stuff up).

"It'll always be there" is just the cop out governance needs to continue ignoring this issue (i.e. continue their negligence of letting it transpire unregulated, no oversight, no QA and no fucks given).

Or that other priceless line the "we-don't-buy-it" campaign were using, "end demand!!" - lol

Stop men as a species from getting horny and wanting to put their dick somewhere.....

.........

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!!


As far as what you and I "know", we might as well live in different solar systems.

One eyed Jack

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

Care to mention a few names or link a few sources?

What you mean to say is, "its legitimization has done nothing to make feminists and feminist groups hate it any less", and in terms of not changing its "image" - like jealous girls bitching about their promiscuous friend, they're never going to stop trashing her just cause big brother said "hey, it's cool if you want to sleep around. It's part of our culture now".

i.e. its never going to be the trade you want your daughter to end up in, but then you also don't want her doing drugs and getting a train rode on her by the alpha frat-house boys.
Your precious little angel going out, partying and getting railed - that's just a part of life that some can enjoy, and most have to put the blinders on cause it's just too emotive to see or tolerate hearing about.

Easier to pretend it doesn't happen, and for that reason sex work is in many respects a "fuck you" to the man, or the woman - and most especially, to the hypocrites.
Legitimization will simply ensure they can't ignore it any longer.

Decriminalisation was really the opposite of ensuring they couldn’t ignore it any more, it was essentially washing their hands of having to take any responsibility for the welfare of anyone involved in prostitution because they figured it would bring in revenue through taxation. That just hasn’t happened. Instead places like Amsterdam and Germany just became the sex tourism capitals of Europe.

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

Same point, phrased differently. Working/progressive society "don't think much of prostitution" - aside from via number crunching 1 in 10 Irish men use them regularly - escorts only, not counting massage parlors.

Legitimized tomorrow, endorsed as part of our culture it'd be the talk of the entire country - not exactly a sign that "no one thinks much about it".

Nah it wouldn’t be the talk of the entire country at all. Most people would still simply carry on about their lives, except for those that don’t want a whorehouse in their neighbourhood.

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

The mental health issue etc spin was part of the suppression campaign, "we don't buy it etc" - they were using reports of violence from sub saharan african based prostitutes and passing them off like that type of thing happens in our own backyard.
Typical of their general tact - lie to manipulate.

But sure I know from experience myself about the mental and physical health aspects of it, there’s no need to lie or manipulate anything, it’s generally why prostitution has a terrible reputation, and legitimising it doesn’t do anything whatsoever to improve it’s reputation. It does happen in our own back yard, and that’s why the Government doesn’t want to be encouraging it or endorsing it as part of our culture, because they don’t want to be the society that treats women like shìt. Some women like being treated like shìt, it doesn’t mean the Government has to encourage them.

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

Most people still think like you: out of sight, out of mind, prostitutes are damaged people, trash from poor backgrounds etc.
Kept in the gutter, you don't get that cultural impact.

They (as in, the industry) don't need government support/intervention?
So the whole organised crime and lack of regulation thing is what, hearsay?
The program RTE investigates compiled, were they using fake actors for that?
Cause if they were, someone needs to tell those criminals they were impersonated on national television.

Well you’re saying they’re making great money from prostitution, surely then it’s not unreasonable to expect them to pay for their own security as opposed to expecting that the taxpayer should have to pay for their security? The Government aren’t a charity, seems unreasonable for anyone to think they can make demands like protect us from criminals but don’t get in the way of us making money, we don’t want to be like everyone else who contributes to society, we want everything our own way. I’d be telling anyone with that attitude they can fcuk off if they imagine that the Government are there to provide for them and protect them and they can have everything their own way. I’d definitely say they were damaged if they thought that attitude were normal. Ask the one in ten men who use their services to protect them. Quid pro quo, right?

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

Oh really?
Maybe I've just been living my life wrong up until now then?
Tomorrow, I'm just going to stand in the high street and wait for a series of women whom will undoubtedly approach offering to fulfill my every male physical need and fantasy - which they will almost certainly do without question or expectation of anything in return - according to your logic at least.

lol

Posts like this are the reason marijuana + internet browsing is a bad idea.

Well you can do that, but according to some lads they’re banging everything in sight on Tinder, seem to be having a great time with all the women on there!

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

Again this is typical propaganda, therefore typical societal opinion (common man just eats this stuff up).

"It'll always be there" is just the cop out governance needs to continue ignoring this issue (i.e. continue their negligence of letting it transpire unregulated, no oversight, no QA and no fucks given).

Or that other priceless line the "we-don't-buy-it" campaign were using, "end demand!!" - lol

Stop men as a species from getting horny and wanting to put their dick somewhere.....

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!!


As far as what you and I "know", we might as well live in different solar systems.

I don’t care where you put your dick, I just don’t see why I as a taxpayer should have to pay for it. You want other people to pay for where you put your dick by having Government fund your hobby and by telling everyone how great it is and trying to convince anyone that one in ten men are Involved in prostitution and the feminists are livid because they can’t control all those horny men. Why should anyone give a fcuk about anyone who is only interested in giving the two fingers to society?

I’m only speaking for myself when I say I for one don’t buy the bullshìt you’re trying to sell.

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Decriminalisation was really the opposite of ensuring they couldn’t ignore it any more, it was essentially washing their hands of having to take any responsibility for the welfare of anyone involved in prostitution because they figured it would bring in revenue through taxation. That just hasn’t happened. Instead places like Amsterdam and Germany just became the sex tourism capitals of Europe.

Do you have any referenced figures/sources for this?

Honestly these statements are becoming laughable, as in - you're simply stringing words together without referencing/sources, that bare absolutely no correlation with reality;

Which is not uncharacteristic of anti-sex work advocates.
Make up contrived statement on the spot to support a non-existent argument.

We get it, you think the sale of sex is deplorable - but if you're going to tout made up facts to condemn the industry, at least try and provide verification of said nonsense, so we can expose it for the complete falsehood and/or misrepresentation that it is.

Nah it wouldn’t be the talk of the entire country at all. Most people would still simply carry on about their lives, except for those that don’t want a whorehouse in their neighbourhood.

More fairy tales, lol.

It went the opposite direction a couple years ago, and became a national hot topic overnight.
That was its criminalization - suppression, and we became inundated with media discussion.

But your contention is, if government came out tomorrow actively enabling the trade, declaring it could be practiced with relative impunity across the country (albeit it on a more dignified level, with measures put in place to address the trash component and effectively raise its profile), that that wouldn't even register in the minds of the status quo?

But sure I know from experience myself about the mental and physical health aspects of it, there’s no need to lie or manipulate anything, it’s generally why prostitution has a terrible reputation, and legitimising it doesn’t do anything whatsoever to improve it’s reputation. It does happen in our own back yard, and that’s why the Government doesn’t want to be encouraging it or endorsing it as part of our culture, because they don’t want to be the society that treats women like shìt. Some women like being treated like shìt, it doesn’t mean the Government has to encourage them.

More on-the-spot made-up statements with no supporting data.

Are you one of the people who thinks if they say something repetitively enough, it makes it a fact?

Or do you have such a high opinion of yourself that you believe everything you say should just be accepted as gospel?

There's absolutely zero data specific to Ireland (i.e. not taken from some corrupt third world hell hole) that supports any contention in your post.

Well you’re saying they’re making great money from prostitution, surely then it’s not unreasonable to expect them to pay for their own security as opposed to expecting that the taxpayer should have to pay for their security? The Government aren’t a charity, seems unreasonable for anyone to think they can make demands like protect us from criminals but don’t get in the way of us making money, we don’t want to be like everyone else who contributes to society, we want everything our own way. I’d be telling anyone with that attitude they can fcuk off if they imagine that the Government are there to provide for them and protect them and they can have everything their own way. I’d definitely say they were damaged if they thought that attitude were normal. Ask the one in ten men who use their services to protect them. Quid pro quo, right?

Taxpayer..... security..... lolwut?

The only point being made is that government oversight is lacking in an unregulated business (which is all the while, thriving, serious cash turnover and not one cent of revenue earned).
To me it's farcical to suggest this should continue, simply cause some organisation of baby-murdering nuns continuously push propaganda that placates the likes of Fitzgerald and Madigan, who clearly have their own covert beefs and instabilities when it comes to sex work and just the talk of sex in general (except when Madigan is playing Jilly Cooper on the side for self inflationary purposes, lol).

Again this post reeks of resentment for the trade.
Did your ex-girlfriend run off to be a sex worker or something?
You clearly have a bee-in-your-bonnet about the issue.

Well you can do that, but according to some lads they’re banging everything in sight on Tinder, seem to be having a great time with all the women on there!

:pac:

I don’t care where you put your dick, I just don’t see why I as a taxpayer should have to pay for it. You want other people to pay for where you put your dick by having Government fund your hobby and by telling everyone how great it is and trying to convince anyone that one in ten men are Involved in prostitution and the feminists are livid because they can’t control all those horny men. Why should anyone give a fcuk about anyone who is only interested in giving the two fingers to society?

Hypocrisy.

National issues are determined on the feelings of those voted into ministerial power.
Now most are good workers, good intentions, but their hypocrisy bleeds into a multitude of national issues, national issues which affect the well being of a nation.

There is nothing known to humanity more emotive that doing the nasty.

Addressing this issue sets a trend for a better society, better rule of law, a better country to live in.

I’m only speaking for myself when I say I for one don’t buy the bullshìt you’re trying to sell.

Sure. Some people got to live in the fantasy world they make up in their own heads, probably just to get through the day without having a melt down, lol.
You don't have to buy it, but alas that doesn't change the cold hard reality of the situation.

Just don't ever go into politics, and try to avoid positions where your potential decision making affects the well being of others, mmmkay?

One eyed Jack

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

There is nothing known to humanity more emotive that doing the nasty.

Addressing this issue sets a trend for a better society, better rule of law, a better country to live in.

Ahh there is - treating people like mugs for one thing tends to get their backs up fairly quickly, especially when according to yourself the sex industry is all fabulous and there’s plenty of money to be made and all the rest of it.

Government don’t want to support prostitution because they’re not convinced it does set a better trend for society, or a better rule of law, or a better country to live in.

That’s the actual cold hard reality which people who wish prostitution was legitimate will never accept, they’d rather maintain the fantasy that everyone else who doesn’t see things their way are living in fantasy land.

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Government don’t want to support prostitution because they’re not convinced it does set a better trend for society, or a better rule of law, or a better country to live in.

Whether they "support" it or not is irrelevant.
It's happening, always has happened, always will happen.
Their primary concern (or so they say) is to address the criminal element ("we want to tackle trafficking etc"), and in not doing so - i.e. allowing criminality and malpractice to run rampant - they are actively compromising society, rule of law, quality of life etc.

Their reasons for avoidance are not based on these practicalities, but based on personal grievances rooted in their own emotional response to the sale of sex - a ubiquitous sentiment, reflected throughout society as a whole, but typically almost exclusively amongst the upsettable female demographic (and as to hypocrisy, typically that very same demographic engage in the same moral ambiguity they're condemning - Josepha Madigan, prime example - though you can be certain there's many more besides).

That’s the actual cold hard reality which people who wish prostitution was legitimate will never accept, they’d rather maintain the fantasy that everyone else who doesn’t see things their way are living in fantasy land.

Emotionality dictates a culture.
Emotionality is rooted in sexuality.
A nations attitude towards sexuaity defines it, and every other policy is ultimately determined through that lens.

You think if Leo Varadkar wasn't who he is (his emotional process that defines his character), he would have campaigned for homosexual marriage rights?

There's a reason Irish culture is stuck in the 15th century.

Legitimization of sex work would force the entire nation to recalibrate it's entire attitude to sex, and that sets in motion not cultural evolution - but cultural revolution.

The likes of Madigan (and yourself by the sounds of things) advocate for keeping us stuck in the past, simply to protect their own sensibilities and defend their own self righteous hypocrisies.

jaxxx

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh there is - treating people like mugs for one thing tends to get their backs up fairly quickly, especially when according to yourself the sex industry is all fabulous and there’s plenty of money to be made and all the rest of it.

Government don’t want to support prostitution because they’re not convinced it does set a better trend for society, or a better rule of law, or a better country to live in.

That’s the actual cold hard reality which people who wish prostitution was legitimate will never accept, they’d rather maintain the fantasy that everyone else who doesn’t see things their way are living in fantasy land.

No one is saying the sex industry is fabulous you ignorant fool. Even for those who choose sex work of their own free will, it's dangerous. That has been made even worse by this law, which has seen a phenomenol increase in violence towards sex workers since its introduction. The sheer irony of your waffling, particularly your last sentence there:

"they’d rather maintain the fantasy that everyone else who doesn’t see things their way are living in fantasy land"


Hypocrisy at its finest. As ever, people like you only ever acknowledge one side of an argument and refuse to see things outside of the scope of your own narrow minded field of view. No room for compromise, no room for empathy even! This draconian mind set is frankly pathetic. The first step in making the world a better place, is to consider all the facts before you take action; and not be biased towards one in favour of another!

Pawwed Rig

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Government don’t want to support prostitution because they’re not convinced it does set a better trend for society, or a better rule of law, or a better country to live in.

That is a good point however regardless of whether they support it or not they should be able to acknowledge that they cannot get rid of it so it would be more desirable to move it out of the hands of the organised criminals.
I have the same opinion on drugs. It should be a health problem rather than a criminal one as it is clear that they are not going to eradicate them.

One eyed Jack

jaxxx wrote: »

No one is saying the sex industry is fabulous you ignorant fool. Even for those who choose sex work of their own free will, it's dangerous. That has been made even worse by this law, which has seen a phenomenol increase in violence towards sex workers since its introduction. The sheer irony of your waffling, particularly your last sentence there:

"they’d rather maintain the fantasy that everyone else who doesn’t see things their way are living in fantasy land"


Hypocrisy at its finest. As ever, people like you only ever acknowledge one side of an argument and refuse to see things outside of the scope of your own narrow minded field of view. No room for compromise, no room for empathy even! This draconian mind set is frankly pathetic. The first step in making the world a better place, is to consider all the facts before you take action; and not be biased towards one in favour of another!

LG maintains ‘twould be fabulous anyway?

I’m guessing you don’t see the irony in your own waffle maintaining that in order to make the world a better place the first step is to consider all the facts before you take action and not be biased towards one in favour of another, while at the same time you’re calling for decriminalisation of the sex industry in Ireland because it’s dangerous, and it’s become even more dangerous apparently as a consequence of new laws which were introduced which no longer criminalised prostitutes themselves. If you’re gonna claim that anyone should look at the facts, perhaps look at who exactly is committing the violence that puts peoples lives in danger. I’ll give you a clue - it isn’t the law that causes violence. It’s those lads that are strangely absent from the conversation, keeping quiet in the background while letting other ignorant fools do their dirty work.

One eyed Jack

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That is a good point however regardless of whether they support it or not they should be able to acknowledge that they cannot get rid of it so it would be more desirable to move it out of the hands of the organised criminals.
I have the same opinion on drugs. It should be a health problem rather than a criminal one as it is clear that they are not going to eradicate them.

They know they can’t get rid of prostitution completely, but what they can do is discourage people from getting involved in prostitution in the first place, and discourage people from using prostitutes. The idea that anyone who is opposed to prostitution means they want to impose on people’s sex lives is something of a falsehood. They’re two completely different ideas.

As it stands, it’s left to Gardaí to use their discretion with the individuals who choose to engage in prostitution, long as nobody is causing trouble for anyone else they’re all good. The Gardaí have even been known to indulge themselves -

Trial witness alleges off-duty gardaí were seeking prostitutes

Unfortunately on that occasion they were sent on a bit of a wild goose chase by their colleagues :pac:

Decriminalisation and regulation won’t move prostitution out of the hands of criminals, it won’t mean they’ll suddenly go legit. It just opens up the market for them to make even more money is all. Everything would continue on as it did before, only now there’s more of it, would be all that would happen. That would mean more Garda resources are necessary in order to investigate the organised criminal element, and decriminalising prostitution only makes any investigation more difficult.

I have the same opinion on drugs and all sorts of other currently illegal activities - decriminalisation only means it’s not a criminal offence any more, it doesn’t encourage anyone to go legit when they had no intention of ever going legit in the first place. Decriminalisation and regulation would only mean more Government spending on administration as opposed to money that could be better spent IMO on tackling the underlying causes as opposed to just treating the symptoms.

The SWAI for example argues that many people get into prostitution as a way to get out of poverty, and they’re right, so tackle the problem of poverty instead of perpetuating a society where women imagine their only two choices are poverty, or prostitution -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pasJGGunWsk

I think the Government are coming at it from the idea of tackling the underlying problems as opposed to facilitating prostitution. Your approach would be like suggesting that because we cannot eliminate currently illegal behaviour, we should just decriminalise it and free up resources. It doesn’t make any sense in the long term as that idea simply encourages ignoring the underlying issues because the activities which were once a criminal offence are no longer a criminal offence.

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They know they can’t get rid of prostitution completely, but what they can do is discourage people from getting involved in prostitution in the first place, and discourage people from using prostitutes. The idea that anyone who is opposed to prostitution means they want to impose on people’s sex lives is something of a falsehood. They’re two completely different ideas.

As it stands, it’s left to Gardaí to use their discretion with the individuals who choose to engage in prostitution, long as nobody is causing trouble for anyone else they’re all good. The Gardaí have even been known to indulge themselves -

Trial witness alleges off-duty gardaí were seeking prostitutes

Unfortunately on that occasion they were sent on a bit of a wild goose chase by their colleagues :pac:

Decriminalisation and regulation won’t move prostitution out of the hands of criminals, it won’t mean they’ll suddenly go legit. It just opens up the market for them to make even more money is all. Everything would continue on as it did before, only now there’s more of it, would be all that would happen. That would mean more Garda resources are necessary in order to investigate the organised criminal element, and decriminalising prostitution only makes any investigation more difficult.

I have the same opinion on drugs and all sorts of other currently illegal activities - decriminalisation only means it’s not a criminal offence any more, it doesn’t encourage anyone to go legit when they had no intention of ever going legit in the first place. Decriminalisation and regulation would only mean more Government spending on administration as opposed to money that could be better spent IMO on tackling the underlying causes as opposed to just treating the symptoms.

The SWAI for example argues that many people get into prostitution as a way to get out of poverty, and they’re right, so tackle the problem of poverty instead of perpetuating a society where women imagine their only two choices are poverty, or prostitution -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pasJGGunWsk

I think the Government are coming at it from the idea of tackling the underlying problems as opposed to facilitating prostitution. Your approach would be like suggesting that because we cannot eliminate currently illegal behaviour, we should just decriminalise it and free up resources. It doesn’t make any sense in the long term as that idea simply encourages ignoring the underlying issues because the activities which were once a criminal offence are no longer a criminal offence.

Aside from the continued speculation you're indulging yourself in, with absolutely no verifiable fact/source/link behind any single statement and nothing you're saying being anything more than complete personal conjecture, bearing little to no relevance to reality or the world we live in (you're effectively conducting a fantasy role play in your own head of what "could" or "would" be, and projecting it onto the sex work world at large) - I gotta ask;

You're a dude, right?

Are you A-sexual?

Are you a playboy who can basically have any woman he wants on demand, no strings attached?

Do you have the world's kinkiest girlfriend who fulfills your every fantasy, precluding you from so much as even looking at another woman or feeling desire for them?

....

See I've yet to meet any dude (really person, but we'll get to that later), who doesn't think about getting laid, 24/7.

Male to female dynamic means that, spontaneous arousal happens in one direction, but not the other therefore - in the most frank possible terms, 99% of dudes are in some way or other, slaves to the poontang.

You're allusions suggest you're not cut from this cloth as, your complete condemnation of the practice suggests you simply don't have that impetus (see opening questions), or you're a fantastically well constructed and drawn out hypocrite who's railing hookers by the dozen in his personal life, but outwardly demonizing the practice as some kind of holier-than-thou public facade.

......

Either that or your attraction is exclusively for men and it's easy for you to condemn dudes who use escort-ireland, as you get your fix exclusively on Grindr.

Whatever the situation is, it's become apparent that there's another agenda going on here as in my time on earth there has been one consistent, undeniable, kind of nasty and not-taught-in-schools fact of being alive;

A man must bust a nut/splooge/ejaculate, at least a few times a week - at a minimum.

Given your self declared exemption from this reality, I have to attribute your stance on this matter to one of the situations outlined above.

One eyed Jack

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

Whatever the situation is, it's become apparent that there's another agenda going on here as in my time on earth there has been one consistent, undeniable, kind of nasty and not-taught-in-schools fact of being alive;

A man must bust a nut/splooge/ejaculate, at least a few times a week - at a minimum.

Given your self declared exemption from this reality, I have to attribute your stance on this matter to one of the situations outlined above.

I never declared anything about an exemption from having sex? That’s what your whole post is about really - is arguing that men need to have sex and in your experience this urge only goes one way most of the time. I kinda like your honesty LG, even if the “American college frat boy / broscience” shtick is a bit much, so I’ll be equally as honest and admit that your opinions formed as a result of your experiences don’t surprise me one bit.

I guess what I’m thinking you’re trying to say is that men need to be able to use prostitutes to be able to bust their nuts on a regular basis because most women don’t want to have sex with guys like you, and the only way you can get women to have sex with you is by paying them to have sex with you?

Decriminalising prostitution won’t make women any more willing to have sex with you than they weren’t already, whether you can afford to pay then or not. As an aside, I’ve never known any prostitutes who were interested in a pity fcuk cos the guy argued that he needed to bust a nut. I’m just not sure how far you’d get with that argument, with anyone really.

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never declared anything about an exemption from having sex? That’s what your whole post is about really - is arguing that men need to have sex and in your experience this urge only goes one way most of the time. I kinda like your honesty LG, even if the “American college frat boy / broscience” shtick is a bit much, so I’ll be equally as honest and admit that your opinions formed as a result of your experiences don’t surprise me one bit.

I guess what I’m thinking you’re trying to say is that men need to be able to use prostitutes to be able to bust their nuts on a regular basis because most women don’t want to have sex with guys like you, and the only way you can get women to have sex with you is by paying them to have sex with you?

Decriminalising prostitution won’t make women any more willing to have sex with you than they weren’t already, whether you can afford to pay then or not.

As an aside, I’ve never known any prostitutes who were interested in a pity fcuk cos the guy argued that he needed to bust a nut.

I’m just not sure how far you’d get with that argument, with anyone really.

You'd be surprised.

lol

....

Laughter aside, the point at hand was your continued condemnation of prostitution (not that your opinion matters really but, it gives me the scope to continue contradicting you and those who represent your stance).

Again, I don't feel I should have to apologize for my incomprehension on this matter but the fact remains that, it simply makes no sense that this would be your legitimate stance and there's not some other factor at play here (a-sexual, homosexual etc).

I've used the word "hypocrisy" ad nauseum throughout this thread but, it's been directed at female detractors.

To me it's so ludicrous that a male could come out criticizing sex work simply because the potential to be labelled a hypocrite would be too overwhelming to even dare doing so.

.....

All that aside - regardless of my success (or your perception as to my lack of success) with the opposite gender - the topic at hand stands, and there remains no legitimate material (referenced, sourced, linked) to suggest there's anything other than feminist resentment of sex workers to prohibit its legitimization.

Essentially nothing to be lost (except for the feminists minds, when they have a melt down), everything to be gained from government intervention, oversight, legitimization and standardization of the sticky goodness.

And that, fren, is the bottom line.

One eyed Jack

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

You'd be surprised.

lol

....

At least we agree on that much.

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

All that aside - regardless of my success (or your perception as to my lack of success) with the opposite gender - the topic at hand stands, and there remains no legitimate material (referenced, sourced, linked) to suggest there's anything other than feminist resentment of sex workers to prohibit its legitimization.

Essentially nothing to be lost (except for the feminists minds, when they have a melt down), everything to be gained from government intervention, oversight, legitimization and standardization of the sticky goodness.

And that, fren, is the bottom line.

Sure what’s that only your opinion (sans references, sources, etc) that there is anything to be gained from Government intervention, oversight, legitimisation and standardisation of prostitution?

It’s clearly not the same thing as ‘the sticky goodness’ by which I’m guessing you mean sex?

Bottom line is simply that people are perfectly capable of distinguishing between sex and prostitution, and it’s dishonest of you to try and conflate the two very different ideas as though they’re one and the same.

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At least we agree on that much.

Sure what’s that only your opinion (sans references, sources, etc) that there is anything to be gained from Government intervention, oversight, legitimisation and standardisation of prostitution?

It’s clearly not the same thing as ‘the sticky goodness’ by which I’m guessing you mean sex?

Bottom line is simply that people are perfectly capable of distinguishing between sex and prostitution, and it’s dishonest of you to try and conflate the two very different ideas as though they’re one and the same.

Well yeah my experience of sex in any capacity, girlfriends, one of my many many one night stands bruh, or the occasional chick I engaged in afternoon debauchery with (one afternoon stands, per se) - is that it's ALL transactional.

Either I entertain them, I provide support/companionship/validation, or simply they think I'm so hot they simply want to get a piece of my sweet man ham on such short notice that we basically slip around the back of a building somewhere in broad daylight.

Regardless of situation, I'm giving them something, they're giving me something.

So - "sticky goodness" - to you, prostitution.
To me, it's all just sex (but I can understand how someone in your position - an incel, lol - probably doesn't view it like that).

.....

You seem to be under the impression that I'm like, you know, one of those hippy stoners.

They tout the invaluable benefits of marijuana and campaign for its legality.
But you know it's just cause they want more ready access to getting stoned.

.....

See with me, listen in all honesty, have I been with sex workers in the past?
Sure, why not.
But I can't remember the last time I was with one, hand to God.

I'm not trying to paint myself in some angelic light; I'm trying to outline that, it is the cultural impact behind sex work legitimization that is by far and away primarily, no, frankly - my only concern.

If I wanted I could still see sex workers. 2017 law has changed nothing.
They're probably advertising in greater numbers now than they were then.
From the point of view of attending them, it's legitimization or otherwise bears very little direct relevance to me.

But....

That grand mal feminist hypocrisy that permeates society, ties it down to historical conventions and forbids forward thinking, etches out echelons and ranks for the purposes of its own validation, poisoning the minds of impressionable youth with all their self righteous entitlements and hypocrisies - I puke at it; that mentality it's like a plague, a virus - makes my skin crawl.

But better than puking at it, to - in my own little way - societally legitimize a trade (or at least encourage conversation around the matter) which would, as outlined, set an atom bomb under its ass, vapourize it - make society a better place; whilst concurrently eradicating the criminal bottom feeders and scam artists that profit off the backs of women trying to earn a living;

Hell yeah.

That's something I can get behind.

One eyed Jack

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

Well yeah my experience of sex in any capacity, girlfriends, one of my many many one night stands bruh, or the occasional chick I engaged in afternoon debauchery with (one afternoon stands, per se) - is that it's ALL transactional.

...

But better than puking at it, to - in my own little way - societally legitimize a trade (or at least encourage conversation around the matter) which would, as outlined, set an atom bomb under its ass, vapourize it - make society a better place; whilst concurrently eradicating the criminal bottom feeders and scam artists that profit off the backs of women trying to earn a living;

Hell yeah.

That's something I can get behind.

I can’t think of much more depressing than viewing all sex as transactional tbh, it’s as shìtty a view of society as the view you claim to be opposed to, let alone your proposal that society should share your opinions that all sex is transactional and therefore prostitution should be viewed in the same terms.

I can see the logic behind your argument, but in reality most people don’t imagine sex as any sort of a transaction, they enjoy it for what it is, and view prostitution as an entirely different thing. That’s why people were having these conversations about prostitution before you were born, and they’re now coming to the realisation that treating people like the way you’re suggesting is just not something they want to encourage in society.

Fcukall to do with feminism or any of the rest of it, just simply a fact that society has matured a bit and doesn’t see prostitution as offering any benefit to society.

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can’t think of much more depressing than viewing all sex as transactional tbh, it’s as shìtty a view of society as the view you claim to be opposed to, let alone your proposal that society should share your opinions that all sex is transactional and therefore prostitution should be viewed in the same terms.

I can see the logic behind your argument, but in reality most people don’t imagine sex as any sort of a transaction, they enjoy it for what it is, and view prostitution as an entirely different thing. That’s why people were having these conversations about prostitution before you were born, and they’re now coming to the realisation that treating people like the way you’re suggesting is just not something they want to encourage in society.

Fcukall to do with feminism or any of the rest of it, just simply a fact that society has matured a bit and doesn’t see prostitution as offering any benefit to society.

Again, this is your personal conjecture (I read your post in the voice of a dude who has given up hope on ever having a sex life and/or any woman finding him legitimately attractive lol).

There is no data, no facts, no sources, no links, absolutely nothing verifiable in any of this "gospel" you post.

Do you hold a professorship in sociology in what, Trinity college perhaps?

Have you published a series of peer reviewed papers with your ground breaking insights from your extensive research and academic history in this critical area?

Or are you just some cynic sat behind a keyboard typing hogwash, trying to sound like an authority when the reality is there's no legitimate/empirical merit to a single thing you have said (or will to continue to say/rattle-on-about, I have little doubt).


There's so much wrong with your contentions, and so many holes it's laughable, but any correction will just result in more hogwash, more holes, more personal conceited conjecture like you have divine insights when the reality is, your opinions (and that's all the are, opinions, that sound like you wrote them after smoking a good amount of ganja) have about as much grounding in reality as something I'd watch on the X-files.

You want to be a feminist?
Go wear a wig and apply for a job at Ruhamma. All the nonsense you tout you'd fit right in around there.

One eyed Jack

Marlowe Old Quadriplegic wrote: »

There is no data, no facts, no sources, no links, absolutely nothing verifiable in any of this "gospel" you post.

...

There's so much wrong with your contentions, and so many holes it's laughable, but any correction will just result in more hogwash, more holes, more personal conceited conjecture like you have divine insights when the reality is, your opinions (and that's all the are, opinions, that sound like you wrote them after smoking a good amount of ganja) have about as much grounding in reality as something I'd watch on the X-files.

You’re the person making the claims about what decriminalisation of prostitution would do for Irish society, and yet you haven’t given anything but your opinions, which are literally all from your own point of view. Bit rich for you to be claiming I haven’t given any evidence when I actually already have.

You just might have missed it earlier in the thread, but it’s the experiences of a woman who is an ex-prostitute, not a “sex worker” or any of the rest of that euphemistic bullshìt, an actual ex-prostitute, who, as she admits herself has taken a lot of shìt for speaking out about her own experiences of how she once campaigned in favour of decriminalisation, but is now campaigning against prostitution -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pasJGGunWsk

That’s the reality of prostitution, so is this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjwktdR_X-Y

And there are plenty more, the vast majority of whom don’t share your ideas which are based upon nothing more than your own perception of your own experiences.

sbs2010

Get a room lads

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re the person making the claims about what decriminalisation of prostitution would do for Irish society, and yet you haven’t given anything but your opinions, which are literally all from your own point of view. Bit rich for you to be claiming I haven’t given any evidence when I actually already have.

Read back over the thread.
All the necessary links have been posted ad nauseum.

The only data you require on the issue is that anti-sex work propaganda in Ireland is contrived through a religious based organisation and/or barefaced liars like Rachel Moron who, like yourself, make up facts on the spot about "trafficking".

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114264051&postcount=106

Point being, with their widespread claims, it confounds matters to the point where genuine trafficking simply gets lost in the fray.


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114269654&postcount=133

Link about gal using sex work to put herself through college.


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114273837&postcount=140

Some insights on agenda behind anti-sex work reports/publications.

It's basically all feminism and propaganda.


https://www.thejournal.ie/accomodation-to-be-set-up-for-victims-of-sexual-exploitation-living-in-direct-provision-5171918-Aug2020/

A government gesture of "good will" - they're basically facilitating the sick assholes that ran magdalene laundries, to establish a magdalene laundries 2.0

A cop out measure, product of continued negligence.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/laundry-orders-run-sex-workers-aid-group-1.606313

Same organisation being currently government funded,

As reported in The Irish Times, figures disclosed to Sinn Féin’s Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin by Minister for Health Dr James Reilly revealed that the Good Shepherd Sisters have received more than €14.4 million from the Health Service Executive since 2006.

Almost 15 mill in government funding, to the nuns (just one faction among them - no figures for the several others supporting this oppressive campaign), of which there have been subsequent investigations revealing that money is used to pay their salary, with just about zero going toward victim support.

Despite selling off extensive properties in Waterford, Cork and Limerick, the Good Shepherd Sisters said, following publication of the Ryan report in 2009, that they had no resources to contribute to the costs of redress for people who had been abused as children in institutions which they had also run.

Same institution, same mentality - modern day, and Irish government is not only NOT addressing their depravity, but contemporarily enabling them.

In case you were totally in the dark about their history, this is what modern day Irish government support when it comes to their regards for sex work as a legitimate trade:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26cqhXC-S2A

bo0li5eumx12kp

You just might have missed it earlier in the thread, but it’s the experiences of a woman who is an ex-prostitute, not a “sex worker” or any of the rest of that euphemistic bullshìt, an actual ex-prostitute, who, as she admits herself has taken a lot of shìt for speaking out about her own experiences of how she once campaigned in favour of decriminalisation, but is now campaigning against prostitution -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pasJGGunWsk

And there are plenty more, the vast majority of whom don’t share your ideas which are based upon nothing more than your own perception of your own experiences.

First video seemed genuine.

New Zealand model.

Decriminalization means squat without regulation (i.e. if the government don't begin quality assurance, better it remain criminalized).

It's basically like letting a bunch of soup kitchen owners into the country to market themselves as 5 star restaurant owners.

i.e. keep it nice and trashy, just what the likes of Madigan and Fitzgerald want.


What have I been saying from post #1

Legitimized, standardized - oversee the trade; in order to have the intended cultural impact, effectively needs to be glamourized.

We know the feminist demographic want to push it into the gutter and keep it there, punish the women involved.

Which is why sufficient state intervention, regulation, quality assurance - just like for any other industry, is so crucial.


Sex work is always something that can descend into trash if left to itself.

bo0li5eumx12kp

I just want to close out here with one final point.

Sex work aka prostitution - it should only be illegal when its trashy.

i.e. when it's trashy component becomes exacerbated to the point where it begins to negatively implicate society around it.

Too much of a hustle, to degraded/degrading, just too trashy.

State oversight, quality assurance would preclude that, almost entirely.

The feminists don't agree - they want the opposite.
They want to keep it as trashy as possible, push it into the gutter and make it drink the sewage water, as that's where they feel less threatened by it.

......

When all is said and done, the individual who's going to make or break this decisions is Helen McEntee - current justice minister.

Her personal feelings on the matter - just one person - will likely dictate the ultimate outcome here.

One character, one personality and dependent on their own personal response and feelings, could implicate the cultural outcome for an entire nation;

.....



What do ya'll think.

Is there a little bit of Nurse Ratched going on there?

Or can anyone see a more adaptive, level headed pragmatist is those eyes?

IAMAMORON

I would say McEntee would surprise you. She is in the game a while and sits at the top table. Let's hope she uses her power to influence a better and safer work environment for workers in the future, that would be a start at least. I also hope she looks to reduce the snide focus the state also give clients and users, they need protection to.

I don't think it is fair to criticise her before she gets a chance to implement her policies.

I also think Gremlin that some of the tone of your posts are borderline misogynist. I get the tone that you feel that blaming the status quo on conservative feminists is the key to more progressive legislation here? Well I can tell you it isn't. I would suggest you need to establish if you want to bash feminists or protect workers is more of a preference for you? I am sussing the former, which will not really help workers. Feminists are very similar to workers, they will still exist long after the legislation is passed, don't forget that.

bo0li5eumx12kp

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I would say McEntee would surprise you. She is in the game a while and sits at the top table. Let's hope she uses her power to influence a better and safer work environment for workers in the future, that would be a start at least. I also hope she looks to reduce the snide focus the state also give clients and users, they need protection to.

I don't think it is fair to criticise her before she gets a chance to implement her policies.

What you have to bear in mind is that, she's still a part of the Irish parliament, it's like the countries pre-frontal cortex to the big brain - it's the cognitive center, decision making and executive function.

The Irish parliament voted by way of landslide to criminalize prostitution - no foresight, no consideration, "it's bad mmmkay" - and the deal was done.

Really, no long term damage, not yet. It's a process.

Point being McEntee still forms a part of that "brain" that comprises the Irish parliament, that collective thought process.
Criticism is due, quite frankly it's long overdue cause their historical attitude, dating back decades, has, and continues to be that of negligence.
Hardcore catholicism, holier than thou - but we still endorse an alcohol culture of getting shit faced every weekend - "great craic!!"
****** motion**

McEntee represents, no - she leads that entire faction as far as this issue is concerned, currently.

By default she's a justified target for criticism, simply by virtue of her occupying the position does; great power, great responsibility etc.

And there's a lot to make up for.

I also think Gremlin that some of the tone of your posts are borderline misogynist. I get the tone that you feel that blaming the status quo on conservative feminists is the key to more progressive legislation here? Well I can tell you it isn't. I would suggest you need to establish if you want to bash feminists or protect workers is more of a preference for you? I am sussing the former, which will not really help workers. Feminists are very similar to workers, they will still exist long after the legislation is passed, don't forget that.

Fair observation - but ultimately inaccurate.

I'll repeat the point made in section 1;
Top down effect - for decades now the Irish government has promoted an agenda of repression, hidden behind their government titles but they're all just people and we share the same attitudes, same predispositions, same prejudices, same instabilities.

Difference between them and us is, given their positions, they're obligated to have foresight not to fall victim to those personal shortcomings whilst establishing the policy for an entire country.

At this point the writing is on the wall;

Criminalization has failed.
Not only has it failed, but criminalization begets criminalization - facilitates this trash, unregulated subculture.

Feminists are very similar to workers

lol - remarkably accurate point.
It's kind of bizarre, no? A big ol' oxymoron
And that's the self defeating hypocrisy of the entire system in many respects.
Again, onus is on that system, regardless of their own feelings and own shortcomings, to establish the most effective, safe, inclusive and functional model.

Over the course of decades they have failed to do this (to be fair, most countries do. In fact Ireland is streets ahead of so many other backwards dumps, but the fact remains that a legislative review is approaching - and they can do better).

However - and this is the beautiful part - feminists will exist in spite of legislation; short term.... I would imagine so.

But as part of a process to improve that entire self defeating circus, this is an excellent step forward to addressing that vile hypocrisy.
So will it exist after? Sure.

But will it be dealt a debilitating blow in the process?

lol

Aw hell yeah!! (I've seen it - again, predicated on legitimization - decrim alone means nothing; quality assurance, standards, ultimately glamourization - and feminism/oppression/fraud etc, whatever you want to call it, has just taken a knee).

bo0li5eumx12kp

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Feminists are very similar to workers, they will still exist long after the legislation is passed, don't forget that.

I just realized what you probably meant by this was, legislation is not going impact feminism.

How I read this initially was, "there are plenty of feminists who are sex workers".

i.e. the same mentality that condemns a trade like sex work, runs strongly within the practice itself.

Which - is unequivocally true.

.....

That's the mind blow.

Irregardless, obligation is still on the system to do the right and responsible thing;

i.e. NOT the negligence Fitzgerald and her predecessors have been indulging in.