The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rights and responsibilities of our oldest profession > Comments

Rights and responsibilities of our oldest profession : Comments

By Leslie Cannold, published 18/10/2007

Laws on prostitution must be framed to protect women’s choice.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
The only reason that Dr Cannold can write such an article is because our community no longer has any shared attitude to what constitutes a human person. Since John Locke et al all moral authority has been removed from community consensus and vested in the individual. Each man has become his own orthodoxy. This means that we have turned our back on thousands of years of meditation on what is good for a human being. It is no longer possible to make a sober judgement about the good or evil of prostitution or anything else. However, it is obvious that prostitution is injurious to the seller both physically and emotionally and that its practice cuts the woman off from a normal life as wife and mother. That it is also injurious to the male buyer is obvious since it exists as a quick fix to sexual feelings that should be worked out within a truly intimate and long term relationship. It leaves the male with an immature understanding of sex as release or as pleasure and undercuts its facility to bond couples together and to be the basis of the formation of family.

By legislating that prostitution is work like any other work we as a community endorse the spiritual destruction of those who participate in it. This is the logical outcome of the liberal way of thinking and the resultant nonsensical use of human rights to indicate a moral path. This is minimalist ethics at its worst.

Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Thursday, 18 October 2007 10:40:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why does Leslie Cannold need to define herself as a "feminist academic."
It's a bit juvenile really, as "academic" would suffice.
Academic could then be added to the further list of her credentials:
"researcher, writer, commentator and medical ethicist."
Posted by piotr, Thursday, 18 October 2007 12:14:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Dr Leslie Cannold for an excellent article that affirms that the ability of adults with adult reasoning to make their own choices.

What I do not understand is why some people seek to restrict the bodily rights of others when they wouldn't want the same to be done to them.
Posted by Lev, Thursday, 18 October 2007 1:09:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It sounds as though "Sells" has some kind of religious agendum in his/her opinion of morality and has been conditioned to believing a strict code of ethics espoused over the years by Victorian attitudes. There are plenty of cultures in the past and present that regard things as unacceptable here in the West, from the taking of more than one wife by the Mormons to sexual practices endorsed by many islanders before the advent of missionaries distorted teachings. Yet they had very strict social laws. I thoroughly agree that any activity that impinges on anyone else in some kind of deleterious way, should be discouraged, but a victimless "crime" such as consensual sex in private is a freedom we all should approve. What bothers me is the rampant hypocrisy that afflicts so many in power and influence. Any in-depth research will tell you that a very large number of our so called "pillars of society" engage in paid sexual favours, yet would deny any such thing because it reflects on their theological virtue. If this was not the case there would not be the billion dollar economy the sex industry creates. Let's support regulation rather than trying to stamp it out. It is a just another service industry. Gambling and alcohol do far more damage to society
Posted by snake, Thursday, 18 October 2007 1:41:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snake writes

'There are plenty of cultures in the past and present that regard things as unacceptable here in the West, from the taking of more than one wife by the Mormons to sexual practices endorsed by many islanders before the advent of missionaries distorted teachings.

And of course many of these practices included what we now call paedophillia. It sounds as if Snake has no basis for his/endorsement of the 'everything goes' morals or immorals
Posted by runner, Thursday, 18 October 2007 2:19:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nothing like a good dollop of sex-talk to bring out the God Squad, is there.

Sells, I'm amazed that you don't see the situation the same way that Jesus did. Although I suspect his take on the matter would be a little too unsophisticated for a theological scholar of your calibre and stature.

As I understand it, Jesus didn't actually have many concerns about prostitution per se. It was the nature of the individual that concerned him far more.

"Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.<< (Matt:21 32-33. Apologies for using the boring old KJV, but I've always thought the others to be a little trite in comparison)

It kinda puts your own view into some kind of perspective though, does it not?

>>It is no longer possible to make a sober judgement about the good or evil of prostitution or anything else<<

Have a think about the way you use the word "judgement" in this sentence, Sells, and the manner in which Jesus used his.

Meanwhile, runner takes a slightly more adventurous stance, rolling out that old canard that if your belief system allows you to pick your teeth, it must by definition also allow you to commit bestiality. This is just the old Boaz_David theorem, especially formulated for those too lazy to think logically for themselves.

Applicable in all circumstances, it ensures that you can't approve of any behaviour that B_D and cohorts disapprove of, because that automatically makes you a pervert.

Comforting for the God Squad. Makes them feel worthy.

But entirely fictional.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 18 October 2007 3:06:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's nice to see a reasonably balanced and rational piece on this topic. One thing I noticed is that the article asserts that "street sex work can never be tolerated." and that it in someway harms the community, however it doesn't appear to back that up with a view as to how it harms the community. I'm not saying I disagree, but there's a bit of a gap in the argument.

It seems such an approach bothers some close-minded religious people, such as Sells who yearns for some mythical time when humans were all morally identical.

"It is no longer possible to make a sober judgment about the good or evil of prostitution or anything else."

I don't think one intoxicated by myths and fantasies, or under the pressure of misguided social momentum would be able to make clear judgments on the matter. I think the article weighs up the "good [and] evil" of prostitution reasonable well.

Sex, like other social interactions, can be anything from a fun encounter between strangers (possibly for payment) to an intimate bonding between a loving couple, without one excluding the possibility of the other. Having personally known a few people across the spectrum of the 'adult' industry, I'd say that they're quite able to isolate the physical aspects of their job from the emotional and personal aspects of their relationships. Just because religious people see some unbreakable link between sex, love and spirituality doesn't mean that link exists for everyone.

Runner, I think you completely missed the point snake made about discouraging things that impinge on others, which is something pedophilia clearly does.

Pericles: "Nothing like a good dollop of sex-talk to bring out the God Squad, is there."

Given this 'sex-talk' is about as risque as they get, their eagerness is not all that surprising.
Posted by Desipis, Thursday, 18 October 2007 4:24:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amazing how many are in favour of prostitution until it comes to their own wives or daughters. The WA Premier who wants to legalize the whole slimy industry was greatly offended when asked whether he would like his own daughters involved in the legal trade. In fact he went beserk. This is fairly typical of those holding 'liberal' views on the issue.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 18 October 2007 5:32:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Prohibiting street-based sex work does not protect those doing it. By diverting the workers into brothel houses, they are then exploited by some "pimp" operating under another name, ie "brothel management" and the new pimp cannot be prosecuted. Also, through the tax system now making an incursion to these houses, the Commonwealth becomes another Pimp.

The debate about those on the street is always unfortunately dominated either by the religious right or those residents close by who have an eye on the property market and probably bought in cheap and want the state, at public expense, to "clean out" the undesirables who are part of the community for longer than the property speculators and upper-middle class blow-ins who want to spoil all the fun. Police records also become a barrier to those on the street reintegrating into any kind of decent mainstream career in the future.

No representatives of religion should hold sway. Resident representation should be restricted so that it cannot outsway the carefully considered view of health and other qualified professionals. I have seen much of this industry and give my views as part of my direct knowledge.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Thursday, 18 October 2007 6:03:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your conclusions never fail to bemuse me, runner. Some of your thought patterns are virtually indistinguishable from a ball of wool that the cat's been playing with for an hour.

>>Amazing how many are in favour of prostitution until it comes to their own wives or daughters. The WA Premier who wants to legalize the whole slimy industry was greatly offended when asked whether he would like his own daughters involved in the legal trade. In fact he went beserk.<<

If I follow your argument correctly, you are saying that if you support the legality of something, you automatically approve of it.

Well here's a thing. I strongly support the legality of the Christian church in Australia. I can see absolutely no reason, in a free country, why belonging to a church should be criminalized. People who want to worship in the privacy of their home, or in a facility set aside for that purpose, should absolutely be allowed do do so.

But I would be massively disappointed if a daughter of mine told me that she wanted to become a priest. I would use all possible arguments to dissuade her, on the basis that it might corrupt her mind, possibly even ruin her entire future by rendering her unfit for any other profession. I might even go "beserk", as you call it.

But at the end of the day, I still wouldn't propose that it is made illegal.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 18 October 2007 6:46:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am very disappointed that the vital requirements of a community friendly soltuion for brothels has not even been discussed.

I would suggest that some of these requirements are:

1. Noise.

Most people don't care at all what you do, (even eating aborted foetuses) AS LONG AS YOU ARE QUIET. This problem of noise is all embracing, and almost all of the oposition to brothels, hotels, shops, etc., is because they are NOISY.

2. Architecture.

It is very important that all brothels are single storey. (to keep down the f??king overhead).
Posted by plerdsus, Thursday, 18 October 2007 7:21:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with leslie's conclusion...brothel based industry is an acceptable part of community life...while street based activity is to be avoided as it carries with it the difficulty of regulating and monitoring for benefit to all participants...

And I dont think anyone with a reasonable mind, living a 'usual' life, and whose views are within average range of most Australians would object/agree too strongly to the above...and find it acceptable...

and if I may add that I have know a number of prostitutes...and liked them all as people...and able to continue with a interesting conversation...and express more of our true self and this is when people truly become really interesting to each other...its funny how when issue of 'sex' is removed from the situation as a certainity for certain reasonable price...its easier to meet as 'people' than woman/man...

and to 'inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family'...boy that is giving your whole life in a sentence...and significant intelligence to boot...and what struggles you must have had to fit in your family and community...hide your true self for a while I expect...well done for having the courage to be you...

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Thursday, 18 October 2007 8:16:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to the religious, marriage is the answer. So let me see,
if a 20something year old Anna Nicole Smith marries a 90 year
old billionaire and walks off with hundreds of millions, thats
ok, as they were married.

But if an honest working girl charges for her services, she is
to be condemned. Personally I have more respect for the working
girl, for her honesty!

Marriage today, is after all big business. Divorce settlements
of 170$ million are talked about in the press. Thats not exactly
peanuts. Thats business. So where did all the love go?

At the end of the day, we can once again turn to nature for some
answers. Yes males enjoy their bit of nookie (just blame it on
testosterone) and yes females want resources to feed the offspring.

Go back to our primate cousins, even they swap sex for resources.

So its been going on for a long time and its not about to end
tomorrow.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 18 October 2007 8:41:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, I have to say I'm delighted by your turn of phrase - not to mention your logic.

Desipis: "Just because religious people see some unbreakable link between sex, love and spirituality doesn't mean that link exists for everyone."

That just about says it all, with respect to whatever inane perspectives the god squad wish to bring to this subject. It always amuses me that those who know least about the practice of sex seem to always be the most stridently vocal about it.

Nice article, Lesie Cannold.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 18 October 2007 9:22:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very good article. No doubt we all have our own views on the relationship between sex and work. What is being addressed here is the concept of work being sex as opposed to sex being work. The latter no doubt provides emotional gain and security and quite possibly, is what sustains many relationships. The former however is much more black and white: a verbal agreement of service for cash.

My own line of thought tends to agree that as long as the service provider is engaging in the industry with autonomy and choice, then who am I to rationalise, reason or make judgement upon somebody else’s decision? If however, the clarity of “choice” and autonomy begin to fall into shades of grey, I will recognise that this is an issue in need of empathy and assistance and to be addressed at a societal level to avoid harm and prevent marginalisation(Politicisation and criminalisation are far from adequate). People are independent and have free- will, sometimes these traits fail us and that is ok. Feeling without strength does not imply weakness.

Sells I must ask, how is it obvious that prostitution is injurious both physically and emotionally; moreover, how is it just as obvious that it cuts the woman off from a “normal” life as both wife and mother? Normality is subjective and the assumption that it is “normal” for a woman to be either a wife or a mother (in your definition, tis both) is huge and inadvertently places all of us who aren’t, into the socially constructed boundaries of “abnormality”. This only perpetuates the idea of different as ‘deviant’ and leaves middle- aged, middle- classed, white male academics (and yes there are exceptions) in their unwarranted and harmful position of power
Posted by Kathryn D, Thursday, 18 October 2007 9:29:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good subject! Sex is nothing to be ashamed of. Rape and other sex related crimes have been reduced because of the call girl "industrial" world. Where would some of you be with out them. Think about it.
Women have the right to do with their bodies as they please, but they do have a responsibility when disease is a killer. Commonsense, with laws and penalties for those who bring harm to others.
Posted by evolution, Thursday, 18 October 2007 10:14:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Sells that our moral compass is not pointing north if morality, an elusive, non-universal concept at best, can be evoked as a guideline for regulating the behaviour of prostitues and their clients.

The author proposes that women who are (rational) moral agents, accept both the rights and responsibilities that accompany their choices and have a right to sell as long as they go about it in ways that don't unfairly burden the community.

Despis mentioned the lack of information on how this harms the community. I'd also like to know what the rights and responsibilities of a prostitute really are for according to the article, it boils down to good citizenship through not being a public nuisance.

The mode of employment is justified using ethical egoism, pure self-interest, with a few exclusions and no morality in sight. There is no mention of a responsibility to wear a condom rather than spreading disease, nor should prostitutes moralise themselves out of a job by not being the agents of adultery or corrupting morals that others live by.

A secular morality that chooses the lesser evil of minimising the burden on community through moving the trade indoors is a failure of public conscience. The NT offers a thorough guideline for behaviour, and the question of prostitution is not morally unresolvable in the light of Jesus' teachings. We all stand at the foot of the Cross in relation to sin. Of course, Pericles, the lesson for Christian morality is not to stand in judgement. Particularly when, as so many gleefully point out, Christians can be found in brothels as customers.

But we don't need to judge or gloat (although the temptation is certainly there). Aquinas noted that morality is known to all those whose behaviour is subject to moral judgement whether or not they know of the revelations of Christianity. We need to approach this real social issue with humility, understanding and compassion.
Posted by katieO, Thursday, 18 October 2007 10:37:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
katie0: "We all stand at the foot of the Cross in relation to sin".

Just go away. We're not interested.

That's what I say to telemarketers and godbotherers. If they don't respond accordingly, that's when I tend to get a little rude.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 18 October 2007 10:55:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sheesh...when she said "It looks like this" and I saw "double the download" I thought Telstra had gone into the sex business !... but then..its 4.00am.. so hopefully I'm forgiven for this slip :)

One thing is for sure.. there are no 'Christian' prostitutes. Its possible that a woman (one was my former neighbour) has fallen away from grace so far that she no longer hears the voice of consience and does that kind of thing to enhance family finances.. such as get an inground pool.... but in the long run... husbands don't take this kind of thing as 'just other work', and the screaming match at 3:30 one morning and running battle out in our court, testified to that admirably.

All we ('Bible bashing wowsers') can say is that Christ has compassion on people..but the woman who was found in adultery was advised by Jesus "go..and sin no more" so.. in Gods eyes, selling your body for sex is definitely sin.

"Sin" is a theological construct.. albeit very real. It is most difficult for a society which is not a Theocracy to outlaw or inlaw such things, only from the viewpoint of enforcability. I suppose in the long run it will wax and wane as the political pressure mounts for one way or the other..and this is the only way it can be in a democracy.

The Church will still be there.. and will not be ever advocating that such a practice is either 'ok' or 'moral' and we will be building our own values, and our own stream of history, while the rest crumbles around us. We will continue to be 'salt'.. seeking to preserve and 'light' seeking to illuminate.

Most of all, we will be a moral compass pointing to "True North" and fleeing from the conditions of Joshua's day where....

"There was no King in Israel at that time"

and

"every man did what was right in his own eyes"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 19 October 2007 5:02:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Such a shame that such a serious issue attracts crackpots and holy rollers to the forum seeking to impose their worldview.

An unattributed quote I know of is "prostitution is the hire of the body, marriage is the sale". Probably based upon less enlightened times when a wife was expected to be available to satiate her husband's carnal desires.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Friday, 19 October 2007 12:01:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I love the way OLO's rich tapestry includes people who can blithely provide contradictions as neat as this one:

"our moral compass is not pointing north if morality, an elusive, non-universal concept at best, can be evoked as a guideline for regulating the behaviour of prostitues and their clients."

And Sells' opening line is just as blithely ignorant: "The only reason that Dr Cannold can write such an article is because our community no longer has any shared attitude to what constitutes a human person."

The shared attitude is that individual human rights take precedence over religion. Most christians would agree with this when the religion in question is a non-christian one - they simply baulk at accepting it as a shared value when it comes into conflict with christianity.

In fact, Cannold's article argues for moderation of the right to practise the profession of prostitution, on human rights grounds. That Sells didn't notice this makes me suspect he didn't read the article at all - he just took it as his cue to climb up on the pulpit and start reciting this week's sermon.

There's a related story in today's Adelaide Advertiser:

"SEX work experience has been listed as an essential requirement for three tax-payer funded positions."

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22610828-2682,00.html

Sells, could you now please lead us in another chorus of "Decline with me."
Posted by jpw2040, Friday, 19 October 2007 12:06:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells does make some interesting points, though I'd be curious as to his answer to these two conundrums:

1) it is the oldest profession and will always exist. Given that, what of the fact that zero tolerance approaches force the practice into illegality and dangerous circumstances?

2) What about people who for whatever reason, are unlikely to find sexual partners without a financial transaction? If sexual release is indeed a physical need, where is the morality in depriving some people of this? Undoubtedly, an intimate relationship is preferable, but for some people this is unlikely to happen.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 19 October 2007 1:10:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JPW, no contradiction if you had grasped the two different “moralities” that I based my post on, that is, Christian morality firmly anchored in the Gospels (the one that underpins my worldview), and the (vague, non-universal) secular morality of Cannold.

But here’s a contradiction: Cannold claimed “I’ve been thinking about these issues for a long time”, yet despite this long consideration she trots out a definition of morality along the old Hobbes, Bentham and Mill line that morality is limited to behaviour that directly or indirectly affects others.

Here’s another: the feminist author agreeing with the paternalist solution. Lev applauds Cannold for affirming “the ability of adults with adult reasoning to make their own choices” yet Cannold embraces the opposite - legislating the ne’er do wells off the public thoroughfare for our own good. One small problem: the brothels don’t want them either (wrong ethnicity, wrong bust size, wrong fetish, wrong crack habit).

It is Cannold who agrees on a restriction of the bodily rights of others, Lev, simply based on a confidence that the women already in brothels continue to work in the sex industry despite having access to various government-sponsored programs.

And another: this solution actually upholds the status quo, with a twist: prostitutes as moral arbiters of the social impulse (not shared by all members of society) to trade in sex.

Back to morality, the state only needs to legislate when the members of society cannot agree. The regulated sex industry is not a triumph of social consensus, but a recognition of deep division, in the same way that legalized abortion, or the recognition of gay marriage, need state intervention. As DB says, morality cannot be legislated.

It appears I'm stuck on re-dial: in the light of a very old and distinguished volume of works, choices have eternal consequences.
Posted by katieO, Friday, 19 October 2007 9:28:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KatieO: "Christian morality firmly anchored in the Gospels (the one that underpins my worldview), and the (vague, non-universal) secular morality of Cannold."

I find it strange that you describe 'secular morality' as non-universal, as that is exactly what it is aiming to be. It's about developing a basis that is common to everyone, regardless of faith, and determining what should be right and wrong from there.

"One small problem: the brothels don’t want them either (wrong ethnicity, wrong bust size, wrong fetish, wrong crack habit)."

The legislation in this article is about preventing individuals from unfairly burdening society, something which is a key role of the government. However, this legislation should attempt to minimize the restrictions it places on individuals. Limiting the reduction of freedom is a different issue all together from ensuring people are actually capable of doing whatever they want as your 'problem' suggests. For example, while the government may regulate how one flys a plane (regulate the sex trade), it's not their role to supply everyone their own aircraft (ensure absolutely everyone can participate).

"Back to morality, the state only needs to legislate when the members of society cannot agree."

Interesting point, however I'd argue that the state should only legislate when members of society do agree, since this is the basis of democracy. And since there is not general consensus on legislating against brothels, there should not be laws banning them.
Posted by Desipis, Friday, 19 October 2007 10:01:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While Cannold didn’t explicitly give a definition of morality, at least she stuck to just one, katieO. This is hugely preferable to changing definitions twice within the same sentence, as you admit.

You accuse Cannold of trotting out “a definition of morality along the old ... line that morality is limited to behaviour that directly or indirectly affects others.” Yet you are spruiking an even older line that morality is nothing more than blind adherence to an historical novel. Frankly, I don’t see any morality here at all – you can’t be a moral agent when the book you’re slavishly following allows you no freedom to make moral choices.

Especially when it comes to selling sex. Clearly your reading of your book is that there are no circumstances under which the sale of sexual services is moral. By stating that sex workers are moral agents, Cannold is arguing that they are indeed able to make moral choices, and with those choices come responsibilities.

You are yet to present an argument to counter this. In fact it’s beyond me to work out what you’re trying to argue at all. Claims about who is wanted in brothels, and that prostitutes are “moral arbiters of the social impulse” don’t advance an argument.

However they do make one wonder where you got the inside information.

“I'm stuck on re-dial.”

You said it.
Posted by jpw2040, Friday, 19 October 2007 10:31:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Profession?

Bwahahahahaha.
Posted by trade215, Sunday, 21 October 2007 4:12:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of areas in NSW where street work is proscribed [even after midnight] is included near view of churches. Oh of the privilege accorded to these tax-exempt citadels of irrational supernatural belief.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Sunday, 21 October 2007 7:50:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just because prostitution has 'always existed' doesn't mean it should always exist as humanity evolves.
Many middle class intellectuals seem to grandstand philosophically, without really looking at the actual long term effects on the women workers, or the criminal involvement in the industry.
Today's 'relaxed' sexual environment has aggressively devalued sex as a bonding agent for relationship and marriage. However, participating in prostitution is another aggressive, socially alienating step again.
It is obvious why Gunilla Ekberg, the co-executive director of the International Coalition Against Trafficking in Women is pre-occupied with 'prostitute as victim'. S/he is in a position to meet so very many more victims of the trade than the author is, wouldn't you think?
Posted by floatinglili, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 4:37:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
floatinglili, the problem being is that rather than seeking to improve working conditions and removing the criminal element from the industry, people like Ekberg are acting directly against the interests, rights and desires of the workers. LISTEN TO THE WORKERS. *Nobody* is better placed to describe what needs to be done to improve the situation.
Posted by Lev, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 5:39:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy