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 > Prostitution as violence against women > Comments

Prostitution as violence against women : Comments

By Helen Pringle, published 2/5/2011

Prostitution is essentially violent, as attested by crimes against prostitutes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 20
  7. 21
  8. 22
  9. All
The easiest explanation for the targeting of sex-workers is that they are soft targets. Nowhere in this rambling diatribe is any better explanation offered.
Posted by benk, Monday, 2 May 2011 10:48:52 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
The author does not define prostitution, which is critical because women accepting material consideration in exchange for agreeing to sex takes many forms and includes marriage. In theory, marriage is quite different in that it involves intimate permanent monogamous relations and no explicit fee-for-service. But in practice, marriage is on a continuum with prostitution, in:
a) that such exchange is by far the overwhelming majority of heterosexual relationships
b) requiring value moving from the man to the woman in consideration of the sexual relationship, and
c) a series of non-monogamous relationships.

In prostitution, time and money are limited; in marriage, they are at large.

The author ends by saying:
“But let's be clear about where the violence of prostitution and the stigma of sex work really come from.”

She doesn’t say where the violence and stigma really comes from but presumably its from all those beastly men.

To the extent that violence does come from men there is no issue that this is and should be condemned. But that doesn’t mean that prostitution in general is on a continuum of violent subordination of women, nor that the stigmatising of it comes solely or mainly from men.

The author’s own identification of prostitution with violence is stigmatising and almost entirely false. This is because there is a clear discontinuum, both in morality and in reality, between violent subordination on the one hand, and all consensual relations on the other. So it is false to identify prostitution in general with violent subordination of women, because most prostitution, like most marriage, does not answer this description. Indeed some men kill their wives, but we don’t therefore say that marriage is on a continuum of violent subordination of women, though perhaps the author does.
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 2 May 2011 11:17:22 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
(cont.)

But more importantly, marriage in the absence of prostitution would tend to cartelise female sexual services. Before marriage existed, any material consideration that a woman might obtain for agreeing to sex must have been, by definition, without permanent commitment. By exchanging the independence but insecurity of such “prostitution” for the security but dependence of marriage, women obtained both the advantages and disadvantages of marriage. The woman, instead of being a “freelancing” contractor being remunerated for sex on a fee-for-service basis, became a “tenured” employee with a joint share in the man’s income and equity. This moral and economic shift in social mores originated the split in heterosexuality, by which marriage became sanctified, and prostitution vilified.

Against the patriarchal orthodoxy of marriage, the prostitute appears as an outsider, a scab, threatening to undercut the female sexual services cartel. Hence prostitutes are vilified as “cheap”, even though they often earn more – and often much more - for their services than other female workers do. Thus it is by no means solely men who vilify and stigmatise the prostitute; and women’s interest in doing so is in many ways much more significant.

It was interesting that Prince William undertook to share his property jointly with Kate, but she refused to undertake have sex with him if she didn’t feel like it. No doubt women everywhere will regard this as a victory for their sex, but the men might like to consider whether they would be better off enjoying the sexual embrace of many and various women at a fraction of the cost!
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 2 May 2011 11:17:57 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
I sincerely hope that Peter Hume is not defining marriage as, "...women accepting material consideration in exchange for agreeing to sex..." Our marriage is so much more than that. Heck, I even occasionally agree to sex with my wife - at no cost to her!

Sorry, Peter, but I found you argument(s) very hard to follow and the bits I did follow, seemed unrelated to the article.

I tend not to proffer opinions, despite the name of this forum, but I feel I must this time. I believe there is no place for prostitution in a civilised world. When you think, even a little deeply, about the impact it has on all concerned, it's hard to come up with a good result for anyone. The justifications for its existence, and there are many, fail to prove much to me.

I do not lay blame at any group for its existence, gender based or otherwise, though I would guess that men gain much more "benefit" from the transaction.

It would be a better world without it.
Posted by rational-debate, Monday, 2 May 2011 11:48:27 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
The author clearly has a very low view of the abilities of other women, in this case women working in the sex industry. They obviously are unable to make good choices for their own lives unlike their mostly male customers who we can all expect to be entirely responsible for their choices.

"It has also long been known that that there are few distinguishing "markers" of men who prostitute women for sex."

"The single claim that Jeffreys makes that is accurate in the litany above is that anti-prostitution feminists lobby for the criminalisation of the acts of those she calls "clients"."

From what I've read the customers are a mixed bunch. Some will have plenty of access to sex else where but for some reason still like to pay prostitutes for sex. Others are not meeting their sexual needs and or expectations by more conventional means consentual means.

Whatever the reasons for someone choosing to use a prostitute it remains entirely their fault that the women providing the sexual services for a fee do so. I don't see how that logic holds unless you regard women as inherently less able to make adult decisions for themselves but apparently it does.

So where Helen is the bit where women are able to chose for themsleves, where is the bit where women are as responsible for their own life choices as men.

Why is the male who does not have a sexual partner and who chooses to pay for a second rate version of intimacy because it's better than no intimacy somehow more responsible than the women who realises that she can make a lot of money from providing sexual services? I know that there are plenty of alternatives to that scenario (the dynamics when Hugh Grant was busted looks somewhat different) but the model supported by Helen seems to always make it the mostly males responsibility.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 2 May 2011 11:59:41 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
Gary Ridgeway doesn’t seem all that normal

“While he was a teenager, he approached a young boy playing alone in a field near his house. He befriended the boy and gained his trust, only to stab him and flee.”

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00803/Ridgway_Frameset.htm

When will feminists ever develop anything other than a bigoted, narrow, prejuiced, sexist world view.

The concept that men exploit prostitutes for sex is a narrow view only.

Prostitutes also exploite men for money.

The prostitute attempts to lure the man and make him want to have sex with her, and then she wants money.

Certainly prostitution should be banned, because it makes sex into a commodity, and also trains women to think that men have to pay money for sex.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 2 May 2011 12:03:17 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 sincerely hope that Peter Hume is not defining marriage as, "...women accepting material consideration in exchange for agreeing to sex..."

I’m not saying marriage is defined by it, I’m saying heterosexuality is characterised by it.

“ Our marriage is so much more than that. Heck, I even occasionally agree to sex with my wife - at no cost to her!”

The issue is not men providing sexual services to women, it’s women providing them to men.

“Sorry, Peter, but I found you argument(s) very hard to follow and the bits I did follow, seemed unrelated to the article.”

Sorry, all I’m saying is that prostitution, of itself, is no more violent than any other kind of consensual relationship; and that women stigmatise prostitution as much as, and perhaps more, than men do.

“ I believe there is no place for prostitution in a civilised world.”

How about casual sex?

“The justifications for its existence, and there are many, fail to prove much to me.”

Do other people have to prove the justifications of their consensual relations to you?

“When you think, even a little deeply, about the impact it has on all concerned, it's hard to come up with a good result for anyone.”

Hmm. This is apparently from the sex-is-intrinsically-abusive school of thought. But if sex of itself is not intrinsically abusive, and selling services is not of itself intrinsically abusive, then why do you think prostitution is?
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 2 May 2011 12:20:29 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
This might get really interesting or fall flat on its face, if the girls do not stir the pot.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 2 May 2011 12:21:55 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
Banning prostitution or criminalising 'clients' would only drive the practice underground. The inevitable consequence of that is simply that more people would get hurt. I also agree that prostitution is not 'essentially' a form of male violence against women. It depends on the specific context. A woman driven to prostitution as a matter of material desperation is experiencing a form of violence. A woman who embraces the culture of prostitution under different circumstances can actually wield power over men.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Monday, 2 May 2011 12:40:12 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
Tristan Ewins
"A woman who embraces the culture of prostitution under different circumstances can actually wield power over men."

That’s actually an interesting concept. Do a search under “prostitutes + attitudes towards men”

The only studies appear to be on the attitudes of men towards prostitutes, but no studies on the attitudes of prostitutes towards men.

So the situation is all lopsided as usual.

I’m sure this discrepancy has not been overlooked by the numerous feminists that fill our so-called universities and social-science departments.

I wonder if feminists get a felling of power when they carry out misinformation, or distorting of information, or hide information.

They probably do.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 2 May 2011 1:10:53 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
Tristan I agree with the points you made but wish to take up on the point you make "A woman driven to prostitution as a matter of material desperation is experiencing a form of violence"

Is it any less valid to argue that "A man driven to use the services of prostituts as a matter of emotional/sexual desperation is experiencing a form of violence"?

There are people for a variety of reasons who don't have access to physical intimacy in their lives. Probably in many cases the reasons are similar to the causes that drive material desperation. In many way's it's easy to argue that maintaining a consentual, not for profit sexual relationship which is mutually satisfying is a far harder task in our society than holding down a paid job.

My own view is that prostitution is a hollow shadow of the intimacy in a healthy relationship but sometimes a hollow shadow is far better than nothing.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 2 May 2011 1:19:31 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
Yeah girls, come and stir the pot.

Because it seems to me, that the fundamental problem with this article is its appeal to the concept of "stigma". The author does not make any attempt to establish that this concept actually applies to the situation at hand. Instead, her presumption that it stands as given not only damages her argument, but betrays much about her own views on sex workers.

It may be the case that a "stigmatised" group is at a disadvantage of some sort. However the very status of stigmatisation, which requires that other people regard them as such - and thus can never be more than a subjective judgement, which in the absence of consensus remains just that - subjective.

I would suggest then, that the author herself considers sex workers, or "prostituted women" to use her terminology, as stigmatised, dirty, inferior, subhuman, and is simply projecting this view of hers onto the "johns". Meanwhile, these men (I mean the vast majority of them who engage in a mutually beneficial transaction with the sex workers), could quite conceivably regard the women they pay to have sex with as equals, entitled to the same level of respect and consideration as anyone else. This perspective is what the Scarlet Alliance, for example, is seeking to promote, by advocating for safe work environments that reduce the level of risk for sex workers from the small but significant minority of potentially dangerous clients.

I don't dispute that the men who murder prostitutes hold unhealthy perspectives on the value of other people. However to claim that sex workers are somehow stigmatised is to both dehumanise sex workers and the victims amongst them of the small number of serial killers mentioned, and also removes some of the responsibility of the serial killers for their crimes, and places it at the feet of their victims.

Oh, and then there's the issue of saying that, if an apparently regular joe just happens to murder prostitutes, then it must follow that all regular joes have a propensity to do the same - which doesn't warrant serious commentary
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Monday, 2 May 2011 1:21:41 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
(cont)

I can't understand how this author could consider herself a serious scholar. (and neither can I understand how she can bring herself to go out of doors and into what is obviously a sinister, vile, and malevolent world). Should we repudiate her, or should we feel sorry for her? Opinions, anyone?
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Monday, 2 May 2011 1:22:19 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
Using the same logic, marriage is violence against women. Given that most violence against women is perpetrated in the domestic environment. Whilst prostitution does expose women to a greater chance of violence, the case against prostitution is not helped by logical absurdities.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 2 May 2011 1:29:45 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
What an excellent article Dr Pringle! It is important that more countries adopt the Nordic model (now used in Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Latvia) in which 'johns' who purchase prostituted women and men for sex are prosecuted. The money generated is then used for exit services for the prostitutes. We live in the 21st century, slavery is outlawed and so should the antiquated practice that allows people (mostly men) to purchase other human beings (mostly women) for sex. As for the inevitable outcry of 'women choose to be sex workers' and participate in being violated, some slaves 'chose' to sleep with their masters too. And Uncle Tom was nice and nicely dressed. The inequality of women as a sex class will only disappear when the practice of buying women in prostitution will stop.
Posted by Freya, Monday, 2 May 2011 1:36:46 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
Freya, the clients of prostitutes are no more "buying" them, than the clients of mechanics are buying them. Prostitutes aren't selling thei bodies, they're selling services. According to your logic, there is no distinction between employment and "slavery". It is an absurd emotive load of bile.

You have not established that there is anything abusive about sex, about selling services, or about selling sexual services. Calling for people to be imprisoned for not obeying your prejudices makes you the violent pervert.
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 2 May 2011 1:47:51 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
Robert - I'd agree that in a sense a man or a woman who lacks any intimacy in their lives is experiencing a form of violence. (emotional violence) Although it's a qualitatively different to that experienced by a woman driven to prostitution by material deprivation. (economic violence perhaps leading to emotional and/or physical violence depending on individual experience)

But the problem of economic violence is easier to solve (through income support, social infrastructure, social services, education etc) than the problem of emotional violence felt by those who are socially isolated and lack intimacy. It's also easier to place *respononsibility* for economic violence - upon the polity, the electorate, the state... But for those who experience the violence of loneliness and lack of intimacy - in a sense these people are victims too - and such people should not be criminalised in their capacity as 'clients'.

But as I wrote earlier; if you drive prostitution underground you're creating circumstances in which people can get hurt.

re: Prostitutes holding power - the example of ancient Bablyon is instructive - where the official religion was based around prostitution and temple prostitutes were thought to be divine. The stigma against that power arose through the Abrahamic religions and their spread across the world. I'm not going to argue right now whether that was right or wrong - but it's a historic example which shows prostitution is not *essentially* characterised by male oppression of women. Whatever the social relation, though, where innocent people are hurt we have to ask questions. As far as prostitution is concerned, this means both sex workers and 'clients'.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Monday, 2 May 2011 1:52:14 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
This article is not far off of what once promoted, and that is heterosexual intercourse was raped, and that women were socialized into it.

The idea of prosecuting only the 'johns' in countries where prostitution is illegal, and there are the seller and buyer, is only persecuting one side that partakes in an illegal activity.

Research into primates and even the chook shed finds that the rooster or chimapanzee that share food, are mcuh more likely to get lucky.

So unless humans are radically different, the same principle is likely to apply.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 2 May 2011 2:19:51 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
*But more importantly, marriage in the absence of prostitution would tend to cartelise female sexual services*

Ah there's the point! We would not want those pesky men enjoying
themselves with impunity. We want them under out thumb, where
we can use sex as a weapon and they jump to it at our command.
These girls are simply breaking the bonds and power of the
sisterhood, best we get them banned.

Never mind that prostitution is part of evolution theory. Now we'll
throw the laws of nature out the window too.

More political power for the sisterhood.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 2 May 2011 2:31:08 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
To suggest that women freely make the choice to prostitute in the context of social and economic disadvantage, gender inequality and racism is simplistic and disengenuous. There's a reason that most prostitutes are women, girls or minority groups and it's not because they're naturally inclined to sell their bodies to men. I'm a survivor of prostitution. I went into it as a teenager from a background of homelessness, addiction and prior sexual abuse and assault as a child. I experienced it as profound violence - systematic coercion, verbal abuse, physical assault, sexual assault and rape, although it all felt like rape to me. I also watched other girls, women, boys and men slowly destroyed by this 'industry', some who didn't survive their teenage years. Decades later, I'm still dealing with the physical and psychological effects of the experience as well as the impact it's had on my personal relationships, employability and financial security. I fully support the Swedish model of prostitution law and appreciate the prostitution survivors, feminists and others who are working to have this logical, ethically based law recognised and put into place.
Posted by Ameline, Monday, 2 May 2011 2:42:37 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
Prostitutes who work at the lower end of the industry are more vulnerable to attack, drug dependency, abuse by pimps and exploitation. Many serial killers of prostitutes have claimed they do not perceive prostitutes in the same way their mothers, sisters or neighbours. Some men argue that prostitutes are only offering a service, but many of those same men treat these women with contempt. Why is the prostitute arrested but not the John?

Not all men are nice, neither are all women. (Let's get that caveat out of the way). How do 100s of men having sex with a 12 year old girl claim they did not know she was under-age. That is how base and de-humanising this industry can stoop.

Prostitution is not a business in the same way as a mechanic or a dress shop. To pretend there is no difference is to avoid facing what really goes on in some of these places. We are not talking about high price escorts here who work in hygienic conditions and usually keep the majority of their income with the smaller amount going to the middlemen/women if there are any.

Legalised prostitution is better only that regulation around wages, hygiene, safe sex reduce the risks. Fact is even with legal prostitution there will be underground brothels involved with sex trafficking or those who wish to flout the regulations due to association with drugs or exploitation. At least with a legal sector there is an option for women and help if required.

Comparing marriage with prostitution is bogus and only distracts from the horror some of these women endure. Obviously in most families men and women both work at least some of the time and the primary bread winner has someone at home to care for the kids depending on whatever arrangements suit. It is not about sex for hire. Sheesh...some of you are so clinical in your analysis of relationships. What ever happened to marriage based on love?
Posted by pelican, Monday, 2 May 2011 2:52:49 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
"Why is the prostitute arrested but not the John?"

Pelican I don't think that there is a valid case for arresting either unless other laws have been broken. Issues around the age of those involved in the transaction, consent etc should be covered by broader laws. There is a lot of difficult issues around prostitution but saying that society has a right to regulate the circumstances of sexual activity between consenting adults or saying it's the fault of the customers in every situation does not fix any of those problems.

The author and other are arguing that the John should be arrested but not the prostitute.

I feel deep sympathy for Ameline and others who've not felt that they had other opportunities but I likewise feel sympathy for those who are so lacking in human contact that they don't feel that they have better alternatives than to use the services of prostitutes. I don't believe that end of the spectrum show the whole picture but it does exist.

It's not servicing a car but neither is it violence (unless it does involve action that would otherwise be considered violent).

For many marrige does seem all to often like a transaction, too many have been through relationship's based on one parties ability to earn or the other parties ability to maintain youth and looks.

Love is a far better basis but most us also know our success in attracting and keeping a partner often has a lot to do with what we can do for that partner no matter how much love might be there at times.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 2 May 2011 3:29:39 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 would agree with JameH

If someone is caught buying illegal drugs from a seller, then both the person selling the drugs and the person buying the drugs should be prosecuted.

A seller shouldn’t be able to advertise the illegal drugs or encourage people to buy the illegal drugs.

If someone is caught paying money to a prostitute, then both the prostitute and the person paying money to the prostitute should be prosecuted.

A prostitute shouldn’t be able to advertise their prostitution or encourage people to give them money for sex.

But according to feminists, only the person paying money to the prostitute should be prosecuted.

It is best to simply walk away from a prostitute and have nothing to do with them.

Better also to never pay money to a feminist or encourage them in anyway.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 2 May 2011 3:48:53 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
Vanna

You are in no position to speak on behalf of what feminists may or may not say - feminists are not a single monogamous group, by which I mean not all feminists hold the same view.

As for the industry - it takes a demand for a service for it to become an industry. Men are not being forced to pay money for sex - they quite happily pay for the service.

None of the above has anything to do with the topic which is about the high levels of violence against sex-workers (mostly women), there has not been a single expression of concern by any of the male posters for the well-being of sex-workers. I am willing to bet that none of these posters would encourage their family members that prostitution is a good career path for anyone. Even for the high paid escort it is a short term working life, then what?

"The exchange of sexual services for money is not illegal in any Australian state or territory. However, there are various penalties surrounding different actions associated with prostitution (for instance, loitering and soliciting). These sanctions generally target workers, rather than clients, and often mean that there is little choice about the circumstances under which sex workers provide services; this then reduces workers' ability to screen for dangerous clients.6 Hatty (1989: 242) argues that: "The law plays a critical role in determining the physical vulnerability of prostitute women...[and that] the dominant legal approaches to prostitution (prohibition and regulation) institutionalise physical and sexual violence against...prostitutes."

http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/briefing/b1.html#violence
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 2 May 2011 4:25:53 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
Ammonite,
Certainly men should be prosecuted if they are going to a prostitute, because they are encouraging women to think that men always have to pay money to a woman for everything.

Certainly prostitutes should be prosecuted if they are soliciting, because they are encouraging women to think that men always have to pay money to a woman for everything.

Certainly feminists should not be given any money or encouraged in anyway, because they are encouraging women to think that men always have to pay money to a woman for everything.

A prostitute can always go to Centerlink if they want some money, and then get a job and pay tax like everyone else.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 2 May 2011 4:46:21 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
This is good stuff. We should be paying academics more. How many thousands do you get a year? And all you have to do is blame men for everything.

Peter Hume, I'm with you. So is Paul McCartney and thousands of other men who have had to pay very dearly for the privilege of female company. Any man who gets married today is crazy. You are better off playing Russian roulette. At least with Russian roulette you only have a 1 in 6 chance of copping a bullet. In marriage it's more like 1 in 2.

However, with our sisterhood hard at work defining prostitution as violence against women, I'm sure it won't be long before we have prostitutes suing men for damages. Nothing is too extreme in their war against men.
Posted by dane, Monday, 2 May 2011 4:51:42 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
RObert
I agree neither should be prosecuted or both.

Yes Paul McCartney is indicative of the majority of men - not.

What about all the toy boys, giggilos (?), and men who flatter and fawn over richer older women for their money. Works both ways.

Why does the topic of prostitutes always lead to male guilt and over-defensive responses without any regard at all to the effect on the women involved in this industry.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 2 May 2011 5:15:34 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
Come on Helen, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Prostitutes are no different to drug dealers.

They have found a section of the population have a very hard to cure addiction, & are in there ripping their marks off just as hard as they can go.

They have found a business that pays much more, for less effort than anything else they can find.

We should be supplying these poor blokes with free sex, as part of the social justice effort. Obviously you aren't too deep into human rights if that is not part of your agenda.

It's not just the poor single blokes either. For many married blokes the old joke is all to true. That the one that reckons the hardest place to get hold of any sex is chasing it around a double bed.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 2 May 2011 5:41:58 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
Ammonite, "there has not been a single expression of concern by any of the male posters for the well-being of sex-workers"

posted by myself earlier "I feel deep sympathy for Ameline and others who've not felt that they had other opportunities". Ok not a 10 page detailed summary of the issues which cause concern neither am I dismissive of the plight of those who've felt they had little alternative.

"with the topic which is about the high levels of violence against sex-workers (mostly women)" - I think the incidences of physical violence are used as an intro to the real topic which is blaming men for women's involvement in the sex industry. In particular the horrific cases of serial killers murdering prostitutes are used to try and create a link to all white middle class men (especially men with burlap sacks).

The author has not done anything to identify what the levels of physical violence are or what factors place sex workers most at risk, both critical if levels of violence against sex-workers was her concern.

pelican "Why does the topic of prostitutes always lead to male guilt and over-defensive responses" - mostly because the topic so often seems to come up in the context of over simplified attacks on men. In this case a clear claim that prostitution is all the fault of the john's (mostly men) and is violence against women by those men.

The comparison has already been made but try it on the basis of only the customers of drug dealers being charged on the basis that a lot of drug dealers get into it because of massive personal issues. Without drug users there would be no demand for drug dealers. The drug user is entirely responsible for the transaction. That's what the author and others seem to be suggesting.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 2 May 2011 5:42:27 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
http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.935

<Three young men were pitted against the entrenched corruption of a court system, an ambitious district attorney, a police department, and the left-biased academia to whom they had entrusted their futures. While DA Michael Nifong hid evidence and Duke University paid for an ad in which 88 faculty members denounced the accused, self-proclaimed civil rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson played the race card whenever Mangum’s shifting story was questioned.

All the students had on their side was truth, the support of family and friends, and the unflagging analysis of a handful of bloggers. Truth won.

But the win is being reversed by silence. Despite the three-ring circus that has ensued since charges were dropped, the normally scandal-hungry media remains mute. Those who cried, “Hang them now; try them later!” have moved on without apology.>

Violence does not have to be physical, it can be pyschological, manipulation.

Ms. Mangum’s long series of contacts with the law and Child Protective Services in the intervening years ended Monday when she was indicted for the first-degree murder of her boyfriend, Reginald Daye. Ms. Mangum is accused of murdering Daye by stabbing him in the chest with a kitchen knife.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 2 May 2011 5:50:09 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 female colleague of mine admitted to me that she has female friends who treat their marriages like a "business".

Being male I wonder what that means?
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 2 May 2011 5:54:04 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
Well that's me, I think I have had about my full of female hate fests and victim blaming so I will see you all on another non-gender related thread.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 2 May 2011 6:37:46 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 1972. And I've just had a "Sex Is Rape" pamphlet shoved in my face by an angry moustached woman in overalls.

Prostitutes are killed more often by serial killers, because other women are not so easily accessible.
Other women are too much effort.

Prostitutes are in fact *seeking* male company.

This doesn't make prostitution itself "violence".
If it's exploitative, it's exploitative in both directions.

And only prosecuting johns is hardly "equality".

As usual, feminists talk about prostitution as a women's issue.
Where do rent boys fit into your worldview?
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 2 May 2011 7:10:45 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
Regarding feminism and what some people call 'masculinism' - I think there is always a problem where movements are based only on *interests* rather than broader principles of *human* liberation. Oppression is a very complex phenomena - which different people experience in many different ways. Because of this it can be dangerous to generalise about a class, gender or race perspective. There's always something that's left out of the picture - eg: disability, body image etc...

While most of the world over women still experience oppression *as women*, there are growing instances in the West of men experiencing oppression *as men*. For example - men face oppressive and unrealistic body image expectations just as women do - though it is not an issue that receives much attention or is taken seriously.

A perspective based only only *interest* might suggest 'well, that's not our problem' - and in any case wouldn't it be nice to 'turn the tables'? However a perspective of human liberation would be concerned with *any* instance of oppression. And in any case not all men or all women experience oppression including body image expectations in the same way; so interests and experience here cut across gender lines anyway...

True, for my own part I promote *class interests*, and recognise the importance of this for the Labor Party in mobilising an electoral base - but behind this I have ideas of national and international social, economic and political citizenship...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Monday, 2 May 2011 7:22:12 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
*A female colleague of mine admitted to me that she has female friends who treat their marriages like a "business".*

Well of course there are. Not everyone thinks that Pelican's
Holywood scenario is the way it always goes and if we don't agree,
we must hate women. Reality does not go away when Pelican closes
her eyes and wishes it would.

I've had plenty of women confide in me that the fact that their
husband was a good resource provider, was a major reason why
they married him, for they'd much rather spend time at home with
the kids, if at all possible.

But David Buss in "Evolutionary Psychology", outlines heaps of
research papers on the long term mating strategies of females
around the globe, the role of money, status, looks and everything
else. There are good evolutionary reasons for all this stuff.

If a drug addict turns to prostitution, she should blame her drug
problem, not prostitution. Clearly its not a job for her, she'll
have to do something else for her drug money.

There are plenty of level headed, pragmatic working girls out there
who can pick and choose their clients and earn 250-1000$ an hour
for their time. Good luck to them. If business people are happy
to pay that, so be it.

Lets get real here. If some guy put a million $ on the table for
some sex, there would be a stampede of women. So all we are
arguing about is the price.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 2 May 2011 7:42:59 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
Hello! I always thought prostitution was a transaction where the merchant (seller) sold the client (customer) a negotiated product of a sexual nature?

So you have individuals, predominantly female but plenty of males to choose from as well, selling their many and varied services to willing customers. Big deal! It may be illegally conducted, considered immoral but in the general run of things it is just commercial sex.

I am far more concerned about the reasons prostitutes embark on such a career. Most do so voluntarily, in many cases to support addictions but sometimes to fund a lifestyle or goal that would otherwise be difficult to attain on 'ordinary' wages. Biggest worry is sexual slavery - which is happening in Australia. People engaged in this most disgusting of trades should be locked up for very long times and then deported if applicable.

In an ideal world prostitution would not exist, but this is not an ideal world so forget that one. The 'worlds oldest profession' will still be around for a long time to come.

As for 'violence' - the main reason prostitutes are a common target for deranged serial killer types is that they are usually an easy mark. Sad but true! But consider the extent of that risk. Sex-workers are at significently higher risk of assault and robbery than average however they are far and away more likely to die of drug fueled 'misadventure', suicide, MVA or natural causes then at the hands of murderous crazies ..
Posted by divine_msn, Monday, 2 May 2011 8:08:48 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 think indoor prostitution should be decriminalized, not legalized as there is a HUGE difference.

http://www.alternet.org/books/148327/how_19th_century_prostitutes_were_the_freest,_wealthiest,_most_educated_women_of_their_time

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/on-the-records-a-well-preserved-roadmap-to-perdition/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act

Once you do a bit of reading what you find out is that back in the 19th century, marriage WAS SLAVERY. Women were not allowed to leave home till they married and marriage was a BUSINESS. Women were not allowed to go in public alone, nor work or vote and if they inherited property it became their husbands and the husband was FREE to beat and rape his wife.
.
Posted by mrsrobinson2010, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 3:15:18 AM
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
Part 2
In 1910 we created the MANN ACT (the white slavery act) that was suppose to be to stop Human Trafficking, yet the real reason was to stop white women from fraternizing with black men. The Mann Act also gave CONGRESS its power and formed the FBI.
Our federal law states that each state has the right NOT make its own prostitution laws and in order to be charged with the Mann act one would have to exploit another person into prostitution and cross state lines. This was the way the Fed's are suppose to intervene.
Yet in 2010 the FBI spend a 800,000 grant in just 3 days supposedly to do a 3 day nationwide child prostitution sting. After arresting 884 people, we had 69 TEEN RUNAWAYS, along with their 99 pimps boyfriends and also caught up in the mix were over 700 adults looking to meet with another consenting adult in private. During this sting, more middle aged people were arrested than THE TEENS THEY WANTED TO RESCUE.
Now we have Bill hr 5575 gong to congress which is to ask for hundreds of millions for services for these TEEN victims and the bill clearly states that any women over the age of 20 would NOT be eligible for services, and most of the money would be spend training FBI and vice to STALK MIDDLE AGED ESCORTS ONLINE.
Now every city already has a whole juvenile court, a dept of child services, foster homes, boot camps and reform schools, but the women OVER 20 years of age have NO SERVICES. These people are trying to convince us that these RUNAWAY TEENS ARE VICTIMS and they are really UNGOVERNABLE TEENS that ran off with their boyfriends that exploited them. Are we not suppose to hold these teens accountable for their own behavior, why return them them with no real intervention to just run off again, and why is the parents not being held accountable for the COST OF RESCUING THEIR UNGOVERNABLE TEEN. Why not lock these teens up to protect them from themselves?
Posted by mrsrobinson2010, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 3:18:04 AM
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
Part 3
Original prostitution laws were created "to stop a women from showing her wares in public" The media likes to portray all prostitutes as curb crawling drug addicts and yet most are really middle aged single parents desperately trying to escape POVERTY.
Last year we spend 250 million to arrest 80,000 people for prostitution, that 250 million could have housed 80,000 women and children long term.
Yet anyone wanting to legalize prostitution wants the women to help pay off the deficit, nobody is even considering creating long term services for women who do want to exit the industry. Or they want these women to be forced to work in brothels where they would have to give half their earnings to the brothel owner, pay rent and then pay taxes and not be able to refuse any clients.
We are no dumb women, we know how to screen clients, advertise and choice our rates for our time. We not not need to be regulated anymore than any other business does, so why would we place regulations on this industry that is not placed on any other business. Why do we make it our business?
In Rhode Island, in 1976 a federal laws suit was filed in RI by a women named Mona St.James who later formed the organization COYOTE . The complaint was what right did they state have in the sexual conduct of consenting adults, and also they were only arresting the women and not the men. The case was dismissed by a compromise and indoor prostitution became legal in RI in 1979.
For 30 years there was never one case of human trafficking, women could work for massage spas or from their homes. There was never one public nuisance complaint in over 30 years (too bad we can't say that about nightclubs).
Posted by mrsrobinson2010, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 3:24:02 AM
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
Part 4
The police never bothered to go into any spa, and check for ID to make sure the girls were of legal age and in the country legally. Yet they did run front page news articles about how sad it was that one could buy sex a block from city hall. These businesses were licensed and paid taxes and they even donated money to the state police and other local charities and the women spend their money in the other local businesses.
In 2009 the Craigslist killer, killed a girl in Boston and then went to RI and robbed a escort and he was CAUGHT because the escort dialed 911 as she had PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
Then in Nov 2009 they criminalize indoor prostitution (putting all the women in the state in harms way) as they claimed they could not investigate human trafficking without criminalizing us.
Ironically the police go in to strip clubs all the time and do ID checks and ask the girls if they are OK but for some reason they insisted this would not work in RI.
Posted by mrsrobinson2010, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 3:28:35 AM
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
There is a small mistake in Ms. Pringe's excellent summation. The 1999 Swedish law she mentions is the 1998 Act Prohibiting the *Purchase* of Sexual Services.
Posted by Let's talk, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 4:07:45 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
Peter, I sense you have an agenda here but I am not sure what it is.

"Hmm. This is apparently from the sex-is-intrinsically-abusive school of thought."

Where on earth did you get that? Sex is a beautiful part of life, and if it's abusive, then there's a problem. In this instance, the problem is prostitution. Women demeaning themselves for money and men, in many instances, cheating on their partners - I would absolutely consider that "intrinsically abusive".

This is not an academic discussion, it involves people, emotions and lives. It is impossible to look at prostitution from that angle and not see it for the blight on society that it is. This is not about rights or choices, it is about lives ruined. I sincerely doubt you could find one person who has not been negatively impacted by their experiences of prostitution (whether the prostitute or the client). Certainly you will not find one whose life has been enhanced because of it.

So, people, step out from behind whatever theory/philosophy/mantra/etc that tells you what to think and look at the people involved and the lives ruined.

Sorry - that turned into a bit of a rant, but I get so angry by the misery and grief that comes from all of this. I cannot sit by and hear people try to justify it.
Posted by rational-debate, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 8:28:48 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
Well I am a glutton for punishment.

Yabby
It is the men who are taking this article personally. It seems it is completely wrong to ever raise an issue which might show some men in a poor light and OLO is bombarded with anti-female rhetoric. Reverse the situation and it is the women who take it 'personally' because unlike the issues in these articles posters like you make sweeping statements about women as though it is the norm.

Look at FS's comments on the other thread remarking that "all women go bad". Now we know he is not representative of most men but that is the attitude that many women have to endure in the workplace despite the fact that according to some men there is no such thing as sexual harrassment or rape because the women has in some way invited the attack. I do take that sort of rot personally because it reflects an attitude that one hoped went the way of the dinosaur but not so.

I have always said these gender debates are superfluous most of the hostile and vilest of comments reflecting past hurts and accusations against their ex-partners.

I have acknowledged where I think men have had been adversely affected such as in Family Law/child custody.

Fact is we have to stop thinking in terms of men vs women and ensure that any laws or decisions are humanitarian and egalitarian even if it means protecting vulnerable people like prostitutes as a first priority over the rights of Johns. And that is really all I can say on the matter.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 9:16:15 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
Hello pelican,

I admire your tolerance and resilience in continuing to state your well-balance and empathetic position in the face of virulent and often bizarre commentary.

And as a man I honestly can't understand how anyone would want to have sex with someone who is clearly in a vulnerable or exploited position - and part of being a sensible, mature, responsible member of society is to find out where disadvantage and exploitation exist, and, if not to work towards preventing it, then at least to be sensitive to it and to make sure your actions don't end up making it worse. Unfortunately I have reached the end of my youthful, idealistic phase in which I imagined that social change chould be achieved to the extent that this sort of exploitation could be prevented, and instead I suppose I have accepted that there will always be people who are unreachable - and that being the case, I do think that barriers need to be set up to prevent such people from doing the harm they are capable of.

As such, I have a kind of sympathy for the author's position. Clearly many sex workers are doing what they do unwillingly - and it's not just about choice, because as Ammeline says it is often related to being trapped in an exploitative situation from early childhood. (and Ammeline, for what it's worth, I am very sorry for what you have been through, I want you to know that we are all responsible for letting it happen, and if there was justice in the world then we should all be behind you in helping you to do what you need to do to manage the aftermath). I do think the sex "industry" needs to be carefully regulated to prevent this sort of damage from happening, and I don't think we in Australia are doing a particularly good job of it at the moment.
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 10:11:14 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
(cont)

The reason I commented on this article in such a negative way however is that it fails to demarcate the qualitative divide between men who do harm (whether deliberately or unconsciously), and men who think about their choices and seek out paid sex in a responsible way (and in that sense we *are* talking about "high price escorts here who work in hygienic conditions and usually keep the majority of their income", in the same breath as we are talking about those who are enslaved and forced into prostitution).

Patriarchy, for want of a better word, is real. There are clearly situations that both women and men have to face every day, which can be explained in terms of having to negotiate through positions of disadvantage associated with gender-based normatives. However it is by no means the only explanation for the difficulties that exist between men and women. Scholars like Helen Pringle need to understand this if they want to advance the interests of vulnerable women, because the experience of being continually accused of being capable of violence or exploitation simply as a result of one's gender can easily lead men to regard feminism as nothing more than a ruse and a power grab perpetuated by women who don't allow us the same level of consideration that we give freely to them, only to have it misinterpreted and thrown back in our faces. I'd suggest this is the origin of much of the bitterness you hear from men in on this forum.
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 10:13:31 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
'This is not an academic discussion, it involves people, emotions and lives. '

I think it is a difference between men and women. Men seem to be able to separate emotions from the discussion and talk about it in a theoretical academic way, and this seems to be really offensive to the female posters. Doesn't mean the men don't care, and regardless of what rational-debate says it's perfectly valid way to debate. Peter Hume's clinical analysis, and the popularity of thought exercises illicit cries of where's the empathy! One can talk about an emotive issue in a non-emotive way while still having empathy.

I get the feeling men here are talking more about high class hookers who have made the choice to earn big bucks rather than do office work. I reckon feminist discourse either denies the existence of these women, or decides FOR women that ANY woman who is a prostitute is a victim. Most men reject this. Most men see a transaction. A simple one of dollars for sex. I don't think any of the male posters deny there are exploitative employers, just that it's a separate issue to the academic equation of dollars for sex.

Let's remember, we live in a country with a pretty adequate social security system. People DO have choices. The constant theme from feminists is all prostitutes are being exploited, or their choice is somehow not a valid choice. It's basically an argument that women aren't responsible for their actions and choices. Notice in feminist analysis, men ALWAYS are. Regardless of their upbringing, their drug habits, mental illness and 'societal expectations', it never lessens their responsibility.

The idea that personal responsibility is lessened by life adversity is foreign to most men I know. R0berts empathy for intimacy-poor men is a very rare. There was a quote on here that nobody forces men to pay for prostitutes, but the prostitutes have no choice. It's a double standard.

Let's remember Men who are down and out, with drug problems, mental illness and homeless survive without the option to earn $200 an hour as a prostitute.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 12:07:46 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
With regards to this section specifically

"I sincerely doubt you could find one person who has not been negatively impacted by their experiences of prostitution (whether the prostitute or the client). Certainly you will not find one whose life has been enhanced because of it."

The most negativity I have ever got is from people not involved, who know nothing - it is them negatively impacting me.
That aside, my experiences as a sex worker have greatly enhanced my life, I am open minded, I am more confident, I have much higher self esteem, I feel more valued than I ever did a corporate job, my job is to make people happy. Even with all the whorephobic and stigmatised crap these people fling that does put a damper on thins I am still overwhelmingly a better and happier person for being a sex worker.

You say you can't find one - I am one and I cant tell you now there are plenty others.

Saying you cant find someone who has not had a negative experience of anything at some point is true of everything. You want to reduce negativity stop attacking us, stop telling us what we can think, choose and feel.

Further on the stigma not attaching to clients, I feel there is a far greater stigma attached to clients. People seem to always refer to clients as deviants and perverts, or violent killers if you go all over this article. This like for any sector of society is a small minority.

Seeking intimacy is a normal human urge, for some people it is easier to find than other. For some people the services of sex workers feels like their only opportunity to have this experience, and agreed and consenting experience.

You don't have to agree with what they want. You don't have to agree to what work I do. But you don't need to pump out such hateful diatribe a perpetuate stigma, insight discriminate, and largely ignore or discount the views of sex workers.
Posted by melanieofsydney, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 12:59:56 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
Tristan I greatly appreciated your comments of Monday, 2 May 2011 7:22:12 PM. Whilst I generally seem to disagree with your politics the comments there were very good. The message in your post put quite clearly one a number of us have been making on OLO for some time albiet with an acknowledgment of our own interest.

Stereotypes and "class" definitions are useful tools but when they start becoming legislation or are used to determine the guilt or worth of individuals they fail completly.

We all walk our own road.

There is no way of telling at a class level that a specific "John" is priviliged and a specific prostitute victimised. It's dangerous if the law starts trying to make those distinctions or even if it starts trying to make individuals involved in a transaction responsible for the decisions of the other party (assuming no duress).

melanieofsydney, thanks for your input. Discussions about sex work carry with them the difficulties of differentiating between those who make informed decisions to partake and those who are their our of desperation. Both exist and it's difficult to help one without hurting the other. Please keep up your input to the discussion.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 3:36:34 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
R0bert thanks for supporting my input.

I have a strong preference for a more neutral term such as sex worker over prostitute as I cannot say I commonly see prostitute used in anything other a negative slant, and if used in non-industry related ways is always negative.

People talk of desperation and being trapped in the industry, this can be true of any industry- I've not met many furniture movers who chose their career - sure some are happy, but no one is seeking to "save" them or disband the service they provide.

This is the difference that stigma can, and does make. One of the obstacles in changing careers from the sex industry (besides working longer hours for less pay, no longer having a job that directly improves the happiness of others, no longer having the choice of which clients you to provide professional services to) is what can I put on my resume for the last however many years. A blank resume is bad, but with stigma around sex work, putting sex work is worse. Sex workers have fantastic communication and people skills, it's all customer service, negotiating, reading people, ability to work independently, openness and often freely accepting people as they are and focusing on the positives. Private workers, add phone skills, advertising, general business acumen and skills and many others.

All valuable skills in almost any industry. I list that though, I will be openly and freely discriminated against. The stigma forces me to lie about my work history if I wish to appear employable. As a fiercely honest person, this kind of omission is soul-crushing - the idea that me as I am, and part of my life experience is so inherently unacceptable.

If sex work is seen as real work, and the skills associated with it recognised, stop pushing views of shame, lack of morality, and weakness. Then you would be helping the workers you wish to, the ones who may want a career change and leaving the people who are happily working to their own thing.

Shaming people into silence helps no one.
Posted by melanieofsydney, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 4:09:19 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 is the grossest moral and intellectual blunder to confuse consensual and non-consensual activities.

I have shown that prostitution is on a continuum with heterosexuality in general; it merges by insensible degrees into other casual sex and male-female companionship of a hundred kinds, and into girlfriendhood and marriage.

But no-one has shown in any way that prostitution, or any other consensual sex for that matter, is on any kind of relevant continuum with “violence”. Violent and consensual interactions are, morally speaking, categorically different. To confuse play with fighting, peace with war, consensual sex with rape, employment with slavery, only shows the worst kind of censorious confusion.

Get this: - the consent of competent parties answers all issues of morality.

The feminists vilifying prostitution seem to get their script straight from patriarchy – hating women for their own sexual independence, hating men for extra-marital sex, and asserting that, properly understood, women are incapable of making decisions for themselves.

All the anti-prostitution arguments founder on this double standard.

If men, by paying women for consensual sex, are exploiting them, then obviously men who do *not* pay women for consensual sex are in a worse not a better position, and all casual should be criminalized too. And any women who marries for any material consideration should have her husband imprisoned. That’s the level of illiberal moral and intellectual gibberish that is being urged here.

rational-debate, your argument, far from being rational, is entirely illogical. It’s circular. You haven’t even begun to join issue.

The fact that you don’t approve of other people’s private and consensual sexual activities does not make them “violent” or “demeaning” and provides NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER for shooting, electrocuting, handcuffing, or locking anyone in a cage. It’s you who need to understand you’re talking about real people and quit your academic pontifications.

Tristan thinks that if someone feels lonely, therefore someone else is guilty of “violence”. But he thinks if the police beat someone into submission or imprisone them as a means to fund the forced redistributions that are the basis of his entire political philosophy, *that’s* not violence.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 4:14:24 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
(cont.)
That’s just caring and sharing presumably. It would only be necessary for Tristan to arbitrarily decide that sexual services are as much of a “need” as the internet, for his moral theory to justify rape, let alone prostitution.

If Ameline suffered any non-consensual sex, there is no question that that is and was bad, and should be a serious crime.

But that apart, the fact that one feels bad, even very bad, doing something, doesn’t convert consensual activities into “violence”. I experience a variety of very strong negative emotions, at work but I don’t *therefore* declare that employment should be illegal (and spare me the bigoted assumption that only women are capable of real feeling).

An 18 year old woman friend is visiting Australia and wanted work. She *wouldn’t consider* prostitution because she already knows she wouldn’t like it. So she got work cleaning homes.

I would no way accept working at a blast furnace but at one time that was the only work available. Did I declare I’m the victim of violence? No. I *took responsibility* for my *freedom* and *changed* what I was doing until I got work I could handle. That’s what Ameline should have done. “Gender inequality” has got nothing to do with it. What’s that supposed to mean? Ameline will only stop advocating the violent persecution of others when men give birth to an equal number of babies? Or when an equal number of women buy an equal number of sexual services in equal positions from an equal number of men for equal amounts? It is such mental confusion that caused Ameline to disown the responsibility for her own actions which caused her distress, not gender inequality.

For centuries in many societies, various consensual sexual activities have been persecuted as “crimes” or abuses, including homosexuality, fornication, masturbation, anal sex, group sex, adultery and prostitution.

But even when the meddlers’ intolerance is armed with the punishments of death, mutilation, torture or imprisonment, they have never prevented these sexual activities, so the chance of stopping prostitution is precisely zero.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 4:16:02 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
This is not about preventing “violence”, which
a) is already illegal, and
b) does not describe consensual activities,
any more than rules against masturbation are about preventing “abuse”, than rules against homosexuality are about preserving “the order of nature”, or than rules against adultery are about preventing the displeasure of “God”.

These are laws to impose sexual morality by force, based on sheer blind prejudice, simple as that. Its own advocates are unable to provide any moral or rational justification but perfectly circular argument. The author is in exactly the same category as the Pasdaran, the religious police of Iran, or the Taliban, who go around caning and flogging people for “immodesty”: an unprovoked attack by the self-appointed VIOLENT guardians of other people’s sexual morality.

Pelican
Your illogic and hypocrisy are staggering.

The article is openly suggesting that *men* should be imprisoned for *consensual* sex. So men are not being “over-defensive” when they point out that there is no rational or moral basis for the argument.

Similarly, the fact that men may want to have sex with women, and that women may be willing to accept payment to agree, does not self-evidently prove that men “hate” women you bigoted fool. On the contrary, it is you being hateful by urging people should be imprisoned for private consensual activity that is precisely none of your business, based on nothing but your own intolerance, illogic, and belief in forcibly improving others. So much for love, for caring, and equality.

The real victims in this world are those who are on the receiving end of aggression, not those who don't like the consequences of their own actions.

Women are not presumptively incompetent and don’t need you advocating police and prisons to keep them on the straight and narrow. Hypocrite!

Melanie
Yes it’s the attack of the prurient censorious God-botherers all over again I’m afraid, only this time their god is the State.

Could you let us know whether the stigmatization comes equally, and equally viciously, from men and women? Or is one sex more prone to indulge this vice than others.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 4:22:01 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
Thank you for your input Sam Jandwich. (Great name)

I am clearly distinguishing between consensual arrangements in those more legitimate establishments and environments where sex workers are in control of their choices in all aspects of the business.

Peter Hume has unfortunately read more into my comments without reading them fully. Where have I suppored imprisoning men for using sex workers. My argument is if you imprison the sex worker then you must also imprison the user if the activity is deemed illegal.

Read first, think and then print.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 4:55:59 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
Peter your words are so elegant and logical that it brings light to my view of humanity which often cloud everytime people get on the stigmatisation vice. I love that you call it a vice, people's blind pursuance of it against all sense and logic it seems it can be little else.

This:
The real victims in this world are those who are on the receiving end of aggression, not those who don't like the consequences of their own actions.

Is one of the best sentences I have read in recent times.

Stigma is a tricky one to pin on who, perhaps through luck or perhaps though how I openly present myself it is the rarest of occasions I have experienced this to my face. By face I mean in person, person to person, not though people hiding behind monitors, sitting in offices, universities and government buildings.

It is easy to dehumanise, to demoralise and discount the views, feelings and experiences of people who to you have no face. I will let people at times go on anti-sex-work rants, I am open, I am out, and when I disclose my status, and relate my views, feelings and experiences people seem to come to a more reasonable position. People from all walks of life, I will have discussions with people anywhere.

Face to face people people don't tend to say you must feel this, you must think that. They ask, they accept my view. The do not dictate how I must feel or think. I am not all sex workers, but I am one and I am a real person, with valid thoughts, feeling and experiences. It's too easy to just look at a group, and make broad statements, hurtful statements and impose rules and forget that group is all people.
Posted by melanieofsydney, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 5:06:54 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
(cont.)
I feel there is much power in group-think, people who hold views for no reason other than others seem to. I generally seek, through my open and forwardness to dispel myths, to show a real face, some solid example. I hope that when someone's view becomes more moderate, or even balanced and positive, this will flow through to others, and create some different group-think. I heard, I read, I saw on TV doesn't generally carry as much weight as I actually met a sex worker, and she said.

Generally religious people of all sexes and some types of feminists are the most likely to dislike me purely on my existence, and discount that my view can be correct, or real that I must be the one who is delusional.

Pelican - who says what is more legitimate and ho says that that is the only place where sex workers have choice.

A brothel, with a business owner who's business interest is making sure all room are busy all the time to maximise their profit?

This is what people usually mean by legitimate.

A street based sex worker, has no extra overheads dictating their work, and given the freedom to carefully select clients - not have to do so quickly for fear of arrest - would actually be the model with greatest control over choice.
Posted by melanieofsydney, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 5:13:09 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
Peter Hume; You will not find me trying to defend or rationalise rape in a million years!!; My comments about sustained isolation and lack of intimacy comprising 'violence' does not necessarily infer there is a *specific person* who is to blame *as a perpetrator.* Not all forms of violence have a 'perpetrator'. For instance: If we grow frail or ill we suffer a form of violence - yet in such instances it is only nature that is to blame.

I certainly don't think anyone should be *forced* to enter into sexual relations - overtly, covertly, or indirectly. ( eg: because of poverty, addiction etc) Sustained lack of physical intimacy can hurt a lot. But I'd imagine visiting a prostitute wouldn't really be satisfying either - as it would be a physcial act without emotional intimacy. But I guess people do these things when they're desperately lonely - So I do not judge.

But it's not the state's role to intervene in people's intimiate lives by 'mandating' sexual activity!! Yet I *do* think that as a democratic polity and as a community we should seriously aim for social inclusion, and help those who are socially isolated. But that's about much more than sex! Perhaps those most at risk are the aged, the disabled, the mentally ill.

Also re: sexual relations - perhaps those who have experienced sexual violence are also amongst the most vulnerable - and because of their experiences find it very difficult to trust, relate sexually or enter into relationships. Such people do deserve and need support, recognition and understanding.

(more coming
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 5:16:04 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
pelican given your history I've been somewhat surprised by your response to the article and subsequent posts. The article is quite explicit in wanting john's arrested but not sex-workers.

In that context support for the proposition seems to be implied when you said "even if it means protecting vulnerable people like prostitutes as a first priority over the rights of Johns". http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11961#205537

There is the usual response from the religious, generally anti-feminist posters but that's hardly new. There are a range of other emotive issues around this, people's response to unfaithful partners, those who find that their partner in an exclusive monogamous relationship has lost interest in sex (but still demands exclusivity).

It's messy but a couple of fundamental issues stick out.
- the tendany of some to try and impose their own morality on others. (with the assumption that the activities are between consenting adults)
- the presumption that women are inherently more able to take responsibility for their own choices than men (or women less able depending on how you want to word it).

Both are a great danger and should be strongly opposed where ever they seek to force their way in.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 5:18:37 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 is the men who are taking this article personally.*

Pelican, a number of men, me included, are simply sick of the
old "men are evil, women are victims" routine, which is regularly
parroted out on OLO, by some rabid feminists. The proposed law
is hardly egalitarian. It would also be highly insulting and
patronising to adult, thinking women like Melanie, when the rabid
feminist movement wants to dictate to them, what they should or
should not be doing.

Why is it that if a woman follows her natural urge to have a child,
we'll even provide her with IVF to have it, but if a man follows
his natural urge to have sex and do so honestly, this group now
propose to lock him up?

Not everyone lives in your Holywood world. What about men with
disabilities, or men whose wives refuse to have sex with them
for whatever reason?

Why should it be demeaning for a woman to be paid for sex, but
apparently not so if she decides to join in at a swingers club,
or group sex? Some of these women earn more per hour then lawyers,
so clearly their time is valued more then a lawyers time. Why
should that be demeaning?

If women with a drug problem have difficulties doing sex work,
perhaps society should help them with their drug problem, not
condem the sex industry.

The core fundamentals of the sex industry are grounded in evolution
and are not going to go away because somebody tries to ban it.
As has been pointed out, all it will do is waste huge amounts
of police resources and if anything is illegal, its an open door
for criminal elements to make a fortune. I had thought that this
is exactly what we should be avoiding.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 5:20:46 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
Peter Hume;

You also talk about state violence in the course of wealth redistribution; But to be honest different forms of state power have defended class interests all throughout history; and it has always comprised violence in one form or another - whether through slavery or serfdom, or effective wage slavery - that we consent to exploitation on pain of destitution. And in the United States today where the poor turn in desperatation to the military as fodder for the latest war.

Even in our 'free' societies, these social relations are upheld by the state - yes on pain of violence, and workers cannot even collectively withdraw their labour without threat of fines or imprisonment...

A Marxist, in turn, might call for a the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (which needs to be understood as Marx intended, not because of the connotation most associate today with the word 'dictatorship') This also need not necessarily be in the Bolshevist or Stalinist mold; but at the very least the exercise of democratic right via the State to uphold redistribution of wealth and power. This is violence of a sort, yes, although for Marxists the aim is to so transform society so as to outgrow the need for the State, and for violent exercise of state power.

My OWN belief is that certain human rights and rights of citizenship should always apply - except in extreme circumstances as a matter of self-defence. I'm Marxist-influenced but perhaps not Marxist anymore. I believe in social mobilisation to force a favourable compromise - rather than a 'final showdown' which could lead to civil war, international isolation, autarchy, and descent into violent Terror. (which is how revolutions often end)
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 5:21:11 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
Well women are equally sick of being painted as evil manipulators, as fickle and guilty of inviting rape, harrassment etc. It works both ways Yabby but I accept that you won't see the opposite view.

I only ask people to read 'my' words not what they think I am agreeing with or not agreeing with from the article.

Simply put there should be arrangements in place to protect sex workers and to reduce exploitation. Not a difficult concept. I have said numerous times I am not advocating for the arrest of Johns except where sex workers are arrested - if the activity is illegal then it should work both ways. Are any of you actually reading what is written or does it have to be repeated.

When Peter Hume starts calling this very logical stance 'illogical' then it only affirms my own position. RObert using his paternal 'I am surprised or disappointed' approach means he is also not reading the written word but has gone into full defence mode.

'Pelican - who says what is more legitimate and ho says that that is the only place where sex workers have choice.'

melanie, if you are really a sex worker then you can work that out for yourself - you would know the safest arrangements. Think about situations where sex workers might not have choices eg. drug dependency, sex trafficking, aggressive pimps, some street prostition where there is no protection from violent Johns. Many of these activities are already illegal such as in sex trafficking but I am not aware that the 'user' can be charged unless it is with a minor, where it is easy to claim lack of knowledge such as in the case of the 12 year old girl in Tasmania.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 5:45:55 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
pelican,

My point was that Paul McCartney experience is very much indicative of all men. Maybe not in money terms but very much in how women see men as just a meal ticket.

I remember when Rudd changed the retirement age to 67. A women I was watching the news with said, for women too? I laughed. She would have called herself a feminist and been 'outraged' at any suggestion of inequality. But when it actually came to actually working longer, like men, she was mortified. You can imagine she wasn't very pleased when I told her women lived longer than men, worked less hours for less years and so I thought they should have to retire at 70. After all women live for 6 years longer than men anyway and keeping people alive at that stage of life is the most expensive of all. Why should men continue to subsidise women's long, idle lives?

Maybe we should start to define this as violence against men?
Posted by dane, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 5:48:40 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
Yabby:”Pelican, a number of men, me included, are simply sick of the
old "men are evil, women are victims" routine, which is regularly
parroted out on OLO, by some rabid feminists.”

I never understood this but I think I’m getting it. Women write articles and then men go nuts at feminists but they forget and talk about women and grrls and the female posters here defend themselves and on it goes.

So really it is the female article writers the men are always attacking?

Drifting off topic maybe. Prostitution, no big opinion here or probably along the same lines as Divine.

My husband told me men can die if they don’t have sex every few days so I think there should be more women doing it.
Posted by Jewely, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 5:50:20 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
pelican, "RObert using his paternal 'I am surprised or disappointed' approach means he is also not reading the written word but has gone into full defence mode." that's BS and I think you know it. It's not paternal, it's someone who generally respects you a lot finding that you are playing some pretty unpleasant gender games on this thread.

I've tried very hard to understand your point of view on this and so far it seems to have been about attacking men for being upset with the proposal. In this case I think that it's you who has dropped into defense mode without reading what's been said.

Jewely "My husband told me men can die if they don’t have sex every few days" - he's taking a big risk leaving it that infrequently. No margin for error in that.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 6:19:34 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
Dane
Then there was the one about the South African miner who lost a leg in a mining accident. The occupational therapist was talking about rehabilitation.

“But how am I going to find someone who wants a one-legged gold digger?” he asked.

“Paul McCartney?” asked the OT.

Jewely
“My husband told me men can die if they don’t have sex every few days…”

LOL. My brother had a name for this terrible affliction: “MSB” – “Massive Sperm Buildup”.

Pelican
“My argument is if you imprison the sex worker then you must also imprison the user if the activity is deemed illegal.”

So as long as the sexes are persecuted equally, you have nothing against them being persecuted unjustly?

Let’s cut to the chase. Do you support anyone being punished for participating in prostitution?

Tristan
I do not mean to suggest that you are in favour of any kind of sexual violation.

I mean only that you are in favour of the systematic physical violation of other human beings so as to expropriate the fruits of their labours to fund all the forced redistributions you are in favour of.

The *real* class struggle is between those who get their money by voluntary production and exchange, versus those who get it by force and threats of force.

Starting from the basic moral position that one has a right to the ownership of one’s own body, without which any talk of liberation is meaningless, any kind of coercive socialism – the kind you advocate - is immoral right from the get-go.

Rather than justifying it, you should correct the errors in your theory! People aren’t herds of cattle owned by government and if you want to redistribute wealth, do it voluntarily!

“But I'd imagine visiting a prostitute … would be a physcial act without emotional intimacy.”

Has it ever occurred to you that you might just be projecting your sexual ignorance onto other people?



All
Notice the double standard by which women’s interest – even non-consensual - in reproduction is sanctified, legitimized, and subsidized, while men’s interest in sex is castigated and vilified?
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 7:10:30 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
This debate over or about prostitution or sex workers has been going on for more than a century.

Yawn.

Sometimes it is associated with the criminal element, porn, drugs, theft, murder, etc etc.

Oh lets not forget blackmail.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 8:25:24 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
Peter; The bottom line is that capitalism is based upon a system of private property. That idea of property was enshrined in the bourgeois liberal revolutions as an 'inalienable right'. But that property itself is backed by threat of violence by the state power.

Of course we all deserve a private sphere, and private property within that sphere. But we live in a world where some possess billions: others nothing. The bourgeois liberal revolutions only saw the perspective and needs of their leading class; and now that perspective is proclaimed ‘universal’.

But in reality those who have nothing are forced to sell their labour power - and have surplus value extracted - lest they face destitution. With a minimal welfare state - let alone a completely voluntary system as you suggest - millions over the world 'fall through the cracks'. Hence the many homeless in the United States. The violence of malnutrition, homelessness, social exclusion - is much greater than the 'violence' of progressive taxation mandated in the liberal and social democratic context to ensure the essential social needs and rights of all.

But when we speak of 'violence': What of the increasingly intrusive regimes of labour conscription which force people to take some of the most menial jobs and poorly paid in a largely deregulated labour market? Or even ‘work for the dole’? And then the ultimate hypocrisy - to criminalise the collective and *voluntary* withdrawal of labour because it is the only way workers can fight back? (enforced by the 'prisons' and 'bodies of armed men' Lenin talked about - not that I'm a Leninist - but he makes the point well) (more coming)
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 8:26:26 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
Following my last post: Any legitimate social contract will involve a mix of rights and responsibilities. But Peter - you are only seeing the needs of the ruling and middle/intermediatory classes. You are defending a particular interpretation of economic freedom; but not recognising the reality faced by workers, the poor, the unemployed; and their access (or lack thereof) to ‘positive’ or ‘enabling’ freedoms.

Your assumption is that concentrated private property and the system whereby surplus value is expropriated is 'natural'. But socially-contextual rights (‘positive freedoms’ if you will) - shelter, nutrition, education, social inclusion and access to culture, recreation and rest time, health care and decent employment - are seen as 'impositions' - indeed as 'violence' against the effectively-ruling class. (which then attempts to recruit the upper middle classes on the basis of the ‘threat’ the welfare state poses to their ‘economic freedom’) Again: the nature and extent of these 'positive' rights depends on - and have arisen in the context of - an enver-changing/modernising economic context.

But economic power also translates also into political and cultural *power*. (which is crucial even for a project of 'mere political equality') Such concentrated power weakens the real effective power of citizens *as citizens*; undermines the ideal of political equality IN REALITY.

What I call for is such a redistribution of resources that all citizens have those socially-contextual rights protected, and that individuals and movements of ordinary people have such cultural power and resources as to rival that of the property-owning class. Indeed – to take the process so far as to meaningfully blur class lines. (economically/structurally - not merely culturally)

The point is to create a *real democracy*. And in return for social guarantees that citizens provide for society in return through their labours - in the best way they are capable of doing.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 8:33:39 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
Theories are kind of fun, basically it boils down to stringing a few words together, into a meaningful rational sounding combination of phonetics.

The best sounding theories aren't really theories but a group of meaningful sounding words that appeals to a persons biases and prejudices and the best have an emotional hook.

Once the emotional hook is engaged any point of having a rational reasoning examination of a theory, flies out the window.

It then complicates human interaction or more accurately the binary system, that stimulates neuro transmitters, pheromones and primative evolutionary pathways.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 9:43:04 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
Peter Hume
"Do you support anyone being punished for participating in prostitution?"

I have already said NO with the exception that you cannot imprison one without the other if it is deemed illegal. It takes two to break a law in these scenarios. Where I live prostitution has not been illegal for many years. I don't know about other states.

Some of the behaviours mentioned are already illegal ie. child sex trafficking although it is sometimes difficult to make a case.

The best way to protect prostitutes is to encourage men to report dubious arrangements particularly if the women appear to be underage or to perhaps take a second to think about what it means to have sex with someone with obvious tracks up and down their arms.

RObert
It is the fact you should know me by now and yet you diminish my view by categorising it as 'playing games'. That is not what I am about and I assumed you would know that after many discussions around gender. That is also disappointing for me as I do respect your contributions. It was probably not the best approach to use the word patriarchal but the fact is I am not game playing nor do I have to live up to anyone else's standards if they fail to grasp my intentions and immediately jump to knee jerk responses.

It is insulting to men to continually have to make the caveat that men are basically good, but equally foolish to ignore the fact that some men are violent and may not see the John/sex worker relationship in the same mutually respectful way the majority of men appear to on this thread at least.

And then you read nonsense like this from dane:

"My point was that Paul McCartney experience is very much indicative of all men. Maybe not in money terms but very much in how women see men as just a meal ticket."

There seems to be no outrage at these sorts of broad sweeping generalisations when it is targeted at women, so please at least keep some equal perspective.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 12:01:01 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
pelican I have the sense that we could get bogged down in a side debate and don't really want to go there. Simply put I was more bothered by your comments than those of dane and some others because I have more respect for your views and history than that of most others in this space.

I think dane's comment was way way too sweeping (and from memory I've discussed similar with him before) but it does seem that enough women see men as a meal ticket to give his point some credibility (and I get the impression that enough men see WIFE in terms of Washing, Ironing, Food, Entertainment to cause similar distress to women).

The paid transaction between John's and sex-worker's seems a lot more honest than the way a lot of people conduct other sexual transactions.

No one is being told it's about a long term committment when it's really a one off, no one's being led to think the other is really keen on sex and want's it regularly when a few years later the lamest re-run on TV will take priority.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 7:40:16 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
Hahaha

'The violence of malnutrition, homelessness, social exclusion'

...
..
.

'Theories are kind of fun, basically it boils down to stringing a few words together, into a meaningful rational sounding combination of phonetics.'

Kudos James!

Violence is hitting people and WTF is social exclusion anyway? Is it if your mates don't invite you down the pub because you smell? Maybe it's when you admit you're such a loser you must pay for someone to shag you.

'The best way to protect prostitutes is to encourage men to report dubious arrangements particularly if the women appear to be underage or to perhaps take a second to think about what it means to have sex with someone with obvious tracks up and down their arms.'

Ah but pelican, the stigmatizers, as melanie says, are partly responsible for this. If Johns weren't painted as abusive cheating woman bashers they may be more happy to admit they were there in the first place, and then they could more easily report stuff like that.

Imagine being a man pelican. You go to a brothel... well, now that's objectifying women for a start!, now as Tristan claims it's also violence (with no perpetrator haha) and you read, well, guy .. sex, seedy, Hey PERVERT too, and there is an under-age girl in the vicinity, hey........ Peadophile! You dirty scum! Where there's smoke there's fire!

Can you imagine a guy walk into a room, there's a guy with a bleeding stab wound and you pick up the knife and then the cops walk in the door. Smile!

Ah it's a funny world.

In the end, by default, male sexual desire is filthy, dirty, abusive, predatory, perverted, selfish, cold and disgusting. Female desire is, by default, erotic, sensual, beautiful, pure, liberating, entwined with love and warmth and giving; Only to ever be corrupted by the filthy male.

40yo man and 18yo girl: Disgusting pervert and abused, exploited and corrupted young girl!

40yo woman and 18 yr old guy: Nurturing teacher in sensual love or sexy liberated cougar and one lucky young man!
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:38:25 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
Fair enough RObert, I agree we shouldn't get bogged down but I do think you were misreading my posts.

"The paid transaction between John's and sex-worker's seems a lot more honest than the way a lot of people conduct other sexual transactions"

I agree the transaction is in theory an honest one but no more honest than most other sexual transactions. Despite this view, I don't always think there is respect shown the sex worker. Much of the feeling is more in line with contempt even by the men that use those services. Whether it is a response to having to pay for sex or the fact some men might feel a loss of power to the sex-worker - who knows.

It is the same attitude that portrays promiscuous women as 'sluts' while men are championed as sowing their oats. That attitude is slowly changing but I still hear it from teenagers and in my children's age group. There is hypocrisy still in our sexual culture whether people wish to acknowledge it or not even though many of the posters on this thread will see it only on the part of women.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:41:43 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
*Despite this view, I don't always think there is respect shown the sex worker. Much of the feeling is more in line with contempt even by the men that use those services.*

Ah Pelican, the keyword there is "always". I don't think it applies
to "the wife" either.

Fact is that sex workers are indeed far more honest then your
common gold digger.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:08:59 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
So glad they kissed and made up.

Pelican you know r0bert needs your approval and affirmation so much! He might get patronising and manipulative, but that's just because he's hurt and feels rejected. You're a good woman. A true nurturer:-)

'I don't always think there is respect shown the sex worker. Much of the feeling is more in line with contempt even by the men that use those services'

Do you think there is respect for the client? Do you think the sex worker respects the client at all? I think respect is for loving relationships, not for transactions of money for sex. Courtesy should always be expected.

I think pelican, basically, you think that the idea of men paying women for sex is men disrespecting women for a start. But why isn't women demanding money to sleep with a guy disrespectful too?

I suppose you see the monetary rewards not adequate compensation for sleeping with a stranger. But the price is set by the sex worker. It's all wrapped up with the expression 'men buying women', and as Perter Hume says that is total BS. They are buying the services of a woman who uses her body to work. Just like any occupation. It's a specialised service I'll grant that, but the monetary rewards reflect that.

PS: I feel really sad when people talk about relationships like this 'The paid transaction between John's and sex-worker's seems a lot more honest than the way a lot of people conduct other sexual transactions.'

I don't think this is true at all. Now most people have nothing on me and my level of cynicism, but I've only ever experienced people being pretty honest with the way they conduct sexual transactions. Prostitution is more explicit and transparent, but I don't see it as any more honest.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:12:27 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
pelican,

'It is the same attitude that portrays promiscuous women as 'sluts' while men are championed as sowing their oats. '
The whole slut think is only the other side of the coin to my analysis of the way men's sexual desire is portrayed.

You cant have it both ways! If men are the predators, the perverts, the abusers, etc, and the women are the pure, the innocent etc as in my post above, then THAT is where the slut word comes from; A woman breaking out of the virtuous pedestal that they enjoy by default.

So, if you want to destroy the slut phenomena, this supposed hypocrisy, you have to destroy the male as dirty perverted predatory abuser stereotype.

Feminists the world over are perpetuating the slut phenomena with the constant victim positioning of women in any sexual encounter and any sexualised arena. They make it impossible for women to be seen as sexually assertive adults capable of lustful desire, and hence when a woman does undeniably display these natural female attributes she is thought of as a slut.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:34:46 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
" I'd imagine visiting a prostitute wouldn't really be satisfying either - as it would be a physcial act without emotional intimacy. But I guess people do these things when they're desperately lonely - So I do not judge. "

Whilst it can vary from client to client, worker to worker I feel confident in saying in a broad sense you'd imagine wrong.

Plenty of people who see sex workers do so for more than to get their rocks off. Sex workers are people they are not soulless machines, they are well capable of listening and all too often caring. Crazy I know -but hear me out.

What type of service and situation people seek depends on the person - some seek release or kink. Some want to connect with another person some sex workers have more personal barriers and may have an imagined life of which they share with their clients. There is more to being a good sex worker than your ability to create pleasurable friction.

Personally, I don't do the fake life details, not my style. The time i share with my clients is that - share, yes my aim may be different to theirs, in that my main goal is to make them happy, and it is not about my personal needs. Listening, sharing, talking, laughing, cuddling kissing these thing go along way to creating a sense of emotional intimacy. It is no more effort to suspend belief than it is with a psychologist.

Like a social worker, i do care about the people I meet, but I can keep it in a separate little box where it does not bleed into my life and bring me down.
Posted by melanieofsydney, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 2:23:15 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
"melanie, if you are really a sex worker then you can work that out for yourself - you would know the safest arrangements."

Firstly, a quick google and you will see I really am a sex worker, and you'll find me on TV (Secret sex lives of Australian Men and Women - Lifestyle You and Insight -SBS) and in print Cosmopolitain and MX).

But you are totally correct - sex workers are the most qualified to make that decision and judgement for themselves.

With regards to already illegal activities, these are separate to the typically defined establishments.

Drug dependency is a social issue presumably if people are in this situation they ill require a good income to continue or support to change. How you get that income if you wished to continue is a choice.

Any type of forced labour is already something to be controlled separately and is not something that is limited to the sex industry, or any particular work models within it.

Protection from violence, is something that should be afforded to any person regardless of where they happen to stand or work.The article insinuates that is is due at least in part to the view of sex workers as vulnerable, and less likely to be noticed, the isolation and secrecy which comes from criminalisation and stigmatisation. Basically if sex workers are seen by society as a whole as equally valued people then this sort of violence is likely to no longer be disproportional.
Posted by melanieofsydney, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 4:13:15 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
Interesting melanie. That Lifestyle show is coming up by the looks - will watch if if I am not working. I acknowledge that there are sex workers who are not vulnerable in the same way as in those other scenarios mentioned in the above posts.

I do believe you when you say your work is sometimes like that of a social worker. Many of your clients must be lonely and in need of some comfort.

People, including me, may hold stereotypical views about sex work and sex workers although there is some a difference between the various ways people can offer these services from high class escorts to street work. I wonder if the independent sex worker or one who works in a more reputable establishment can be compared to those who are more vulnerable in less than satisfactory conditions.

I have worked with many people in law enforcement and the stories about some of the brothels don't always paint a picture of women in control of their destinies.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 5:15:02 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
There's a hell of a lot of workers in all industries who aren't in control of their destinies.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 5:43:23 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
Pelican:”I do believe you when you say your work is sometimes like that of a social worker.”

I didn’t – well no more than a chat and a cup of tea with any other human is like social work. Sorry Mel but pull the other one. :P You didn’t quite say that though… it was “like a social worker” and care about people which makes perfect sense although you threw it in with the assumption social workers care.

Houel:”There's a hell of a lot of workers in all industries who aren't in control of their destinies.”

I’m trying to think of someone who is in control of their destiny no matter what work they choose.

I must be in need of a coffee…
Posted by Jewely, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 6:01:28 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
Great post Melanie! Confession. I am a regular customer of SW. Raised in an all-male environment I was painfully shy it was only encounters with SW that enabled me to build up confidence if I had done so more often I would have built up confidence quicker. To me commercial sex is neither better nor worse than non-commercial sex, just different, sex workers are beautiful women and I desire them. Sex comes in all forms I like a particular sort that I pay for casual friendly and respectful. Sex workers benefit by $$ and why not and I do. I work in a people profession and do my best for people I'm paid for it but that doesn't mean I see people I deal with just as sources of $$.Some sex worker customers are idiots and worse but I believe that overall we are much more sympathetic to sex workers than general population. Sex workers are great people.
Posted by GeoffR, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 6:43:08 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
Lets look at the last two articles about the binary relationship.

Myth vs reality timidity or risk taking. This sort of tries to explain away particular explanations or reasons that more women aren't on boards or in politics etc.

Then there is this article that equates prostitution as violence against women.

There was another published in a paper that used the phrase "birth rape" and after a fair bit of protest, the author changed the name.

Basically these authors are relying heavily on the emotional hook.

There is a fair amount of conditioning or grooming of the female victim position.

Thats it, these authors are grooming the next generation of female victims.

Your career hasnt stalled because of decisions or choices that you made, it stalled because of men.

Women who work in the trade aren't there because of choices that they made, and besides men paying for sex is violence.

Oh of course any male who does not support these positions must automatically hate women.

But then some people hold the positions that if other do not agree with them, they then do not like them. But because for example I may not agree with your ideas or opinions, it does not automatically follow that I'd dislike you as a person.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 6:52:23 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
Marriage is probably the most common acceptable form of prostitution
Posted by creep, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 7:19:26 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
“Oh of course any male who does not support these positions must automatically hate women.”

You seem fully annoyed about it. Actually I would be too if I was being told who I hated.

So what was this “birth rape” one? I can’t even work out what it could mean.

“There is a fair amount of conditioning or grooming of the female victim position.”

I keep missing it, maybe you have to be a 12 year old girl to fall for it.

“Women who work in the trade aren't there because of choices that they made, and besides men paying for sex is violence.”

I don’t know – I haven’t been a customer or a prostitute. Is Peter or creep now going to launch into a “you’re married so you are one” type thing? That is really sad, I can’t remember who said it was sad but they were correct.
Posted by Jewely, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 7:22:58 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 have worked with many people in law enforcement and the stories about some of the brothels don't always paint a picture of women in control of their destinies.*

Pelican, the same could be said about the many marital disputes
that police attend on a daily basis.

FWIW, I have no hesitation in admitting that I have paid females
for sex, because of the sheer convenience.

When I was younger I was more like Houllie, but the day comes when
you have more notches on the board then you can remember and the
club/pub scene isn't your thing anymore, so you have nothing left
to prove and can't be bothered with the drama.

Unlike Houllie, I've seen a huge amount of deception going on, as
blokes will say anything to get into girls pants, whilst girls are
hoping for some kind of commitment. Some of the emotional scars
that are involved, cause an awful lot of pain and stress. Its not
part of my character or integrity to do the same. But yes, it would
be easy.

As to sex workers, they come in all shapes and sizes. Yes, some
are drug addicts, but they exist all through our community. Others
are Asian university students trying to keep up with the huge amounts
that we charge them, all the way to middle aged types who hate the
thought of a 9-5 office job and would prefer to work for themselves
then for any boss. Some are really nice and friendly, some are not.

Most are far more pragmatic about the world then your common housewife.

The thing is, its fairly pointless to get into a relationship,
mainly for the sex. But its also reality that blokes need to have
a woman in bed occasionaly. Given that top chicks are rare in
the meatmarket and mostly married, sex workers fulfill a practical
role out there and are honest about things, which is not always
the case in the marriage market.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 8:16:39 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
Jewely, Daphne Patai, in Heterophobia referred to the work of Joel Best, about how claim makers go about establishing their claim.

The use of emotional analogies is fairly frequent, combining for instance, sexual harrasement and rape, or prostitution and violence. This is used to override the more logical thinking processes.

This author does this at the begining by where she lists the deaths of prostitutes and offenders. It doesnt really matter that a person is much more likely to be killed in a motor vechile accident, than be murdered.

So a picture of negativity begins to the emerge, as negative words are used and outcomes are painted negatively.


So the author quickly extrapolates these cases to apply across the board.

That these murderers were more than likely to be Psychopaths or to display psychopathic traits than the ordinary jo blow on the street.

Daphne Patai (Joel Best) once society begins to accept a particular claim then more and more instances are found, thus the claim grows and expands.

Back in the 1960's it was claimed that marriage was a patriarchial construct designed to keep women oppressed and in servitude. Rather than veiwing marriage as a binary relationship that was fluid in dynamics and complementary, where things like caring and nurturing just happened to take place.

Yet I theorize that if as a society we were not so hung up on sex, than we would not have half the problems that we now have.

But then how would people then be manipulated and controlled.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:21:11 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
Jewely http://jezebel.com/#!5632689/what-is-birth-rape

Anybody remember the scene in Hancock where Hancock is rescuing the female police office sheltering behind a shot up police car and he stops to ask her permission?

On the other hand courtesy and privacy should be given where they can reasonably be given. It's a balance but I suspect that those who tie the term rape to child birth are not much about balance.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:35:43 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
Thanks R0bert got it. My experience is hospitals for males and females are places where people get treated quite badly and come out the other end feeling they’ve been abused in all kinds of ways.

James:“The use of emotional analogies is fairly frequent, combining for instance, sexual harrasement and rape, or prostitution and violence. This is used to override the more logical thinking processes.”

Okay but the author has chosen a field of work here where it might be easier to believe?

But stuff like;

“On today’s show, as we cross from one continent to another, we witness the widespread, humiliating, emasculation of men and boys, which is now deeply embedded in the way we view equality and social justice in the western democracies.
The manipulated silent majority which makes up our communities, blindly accepts the incredible debasement of the male of the human species, and laughs at their demise and discomfort, as they struggle with the constant attacks on their dignity and persona.
As happened with other human rights abuses of the past, an ignorant community led by weak leadership, unquestioningly accepts the demonizing, stereotyping and marginalizing of members of a particular societal group, and fails to recognize this bigoted behaviour as an abuse of fundamental human rights. “
http://politics.feedfury.com/content/48013895-dads-on-the-air-12-apr-2011-in-support-of-men.html

Isn’t it the same thing?

James:”Back in the 1960's it was claimed that marriage was a patriarchial construct designed to keep women oppressed and in servitude.”

Yeah it didn’t work though, well didn’t work on me as I was learning to walk or my mum and sisters. One sister is a feminist but married. Or I may have chosen servitude as all good. I'm going to think about it.
Posted by Jewely, Thursday, 5 May 2011 8:19:59 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
Well a chat and coffee with a friend is probably better than a social worker in many cases.

“Houlley
“I think pelican, basically, you think that the idea of men paying women for sex is men disrespecting women for a start. But why isn't women demanding money to sleep with a guy disrespectful?”

That is not what I said, nor is it what I think. I said that men who use these services don’t always treat these women with respect or call it courtesy if you like. And that is regardless of how honest or not these transactions might be. It is not disrespectful to ask for money for sex if your business is selling sex. What is disrespectufl is to use these services and then diminish the role or refer to these women as "nothing but whores" (in terms of the comments made by serial killers of prostitutes). In other words their status marks them as less than human. No matter how pure you paint it in terms of honest transactions, the cultural significance does not go away.

Sex-workers don’t have a table at the Careers Day at schools so lets not pretend it is like any other job.

Clearly there is some stigma attached to both the user and the provider but the sex worker bears the brunt IMO. Mainly because nobody would know if a man they just met regularly visits sex workers. I would not want to go out with one admittedley if I did know because of the potential health risks. And if I was honest I do find the whole scenario a bit icky for some reason.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 5 May 2011 10:19:19 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
Women I think, don’t like the idea of prostitution because they don’t like to imagine their partner/husband might one day wish to use a stranger rather than have sex with them. It is similar to a betrayal however, that said, many women also believe it is a legitimate service that men (and some women) sometimes seek out particularly if they are lonely, disabled or single as long as it not their partners.

“So, if you want to destroy the slut phenomena, this supposed hypocrisy, you have to destroy the male as dirty perverted predatory abuser stereotype”

But males are not perceived in that extreme stereotype, that is only a distorted representation by the ‘feminazi’ accuser crowd.

Society regards women as the ‘slut’ because of ideas around women who have random sex without feeling or commitment as failing in some way. It also throws back to issues around paternity - ensuring the husband is the father - enter the idea of 'slut' much of it based on traditional cultural norms which have slowly evolved to some extent. The idea of promsicuous women juxtaposes too much with the nurturing and mothering role for some people particularly if the women is a sex worker which is not quite the same thing as being promiscuous.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 5 May 2011 10:22:14 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
Pelican
>“I have already said NO with the exception that you cannot imprison one without the other if it is deemed illegal.”

In other words you DO support imprisoning men for prostitution for no other reason than that it be illegal for women.

“Peter Hume has unfortunately read more into my comments without reading them fully. Where have I supported imprisoning men for using sex workers[?]”

Right there! So it’s not that I’m misreading you. It’s that you what you’re writing is confused and hypocritical. It’s not “humanitarian” to imprison people for consensual activities. You have completely failed to show why anyone should be imprisoned for prostitution despite your being in favour of it!

> I am clearly distinguishing between consensual arrangements in those more legitimate establishments and environments where sex workers are in control of their choices in all aspects of the business.

More illogic and confusion. Whether people consent to something does NOT depend on whether they can be collected in a central place so government can monitor them, or register them like dogs, or extract tribute from them like peasants. The concept of freedom is obviously completely foreign to your way of thinking.

You seem to think, just because we *remark* that women are motivated by material considerations in choosing a husband or agreeing to sex – (didn’t marry a homeless beggar did you?) - that therefore we *condemn* them for it.

It is you who are condemning women for their sexuality, by assuming that the only reason a woman would agree to have sex for money is that there’s probably something deeply wrong - she’s a “victim”, she’s being “exploited”, she has “no control”, it’s not “legitimate”, it’s “anti-female rhetoric”, it “shows men in a poor light”, it’s “victim blaming”, it’s a “female hate fest”.

Tristan
I charge you with being similarly illogical and confused.

“Whatever the social relation, though, where innocent people are hurt we have to ask questions.”

True. Virtually everything else you say actively contradicts that.

To say that, just because someone feels lonesome, therefore they are experiencing “violence” is just silly.

(cont.)
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 5 May 2011 12:05:44 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
When this is pointed out, instead of saying “Oh sorry, you’re right, that was a silly thing to say” you PERSIST, now maintaining that there was violence, but no perpetrator. Sorry, but that’s just idiotic.

Similarly with economics, the price of the factors of production derives from value that the consumers place on the end product. These consumers are, in other words, the people, the masses, the proletariat. In valuing end products they are not using “violence” or “power” against anyone, including the producers of the factors including themselves.

This fact explodes your entire theory of economics and politics.

“But” you might say “the economic violence I’m talking about comes from nature, not man.” But that is no justification of any violence or threats against anyone, is it?

Therefore I say you are deeply confused, on the one hand advocating violence or threats against people for anything you arbitrarily want, such as compulsory state indoctrination, on the other hand saying things like:
“I certainly don't think anyone should be *forced* to enter into sexual relations…”

Well then why should anyone be forced into economic relations?

In forcing people into economic relations you are forcing their personal services. If that is justified, then why isn’t forcing people into sexual relations?

Your *political* argument is in essence that people’s freedom must be systematically violated, to serve the higher ends of a greater good.

Well *that’s what they all say*, isn’t it?

If we start with illogic and factual errors and spleen – as Marx did – we will end up with false conclusions - as you do, mistakenly parading as a higher concern for others whom you propose to beat into submission.

I suggested you *re-think* the errors of your theory, but instead you have just *repeated* them, giving us a serve of garbled neo-Marxism refuted a thousand times.

* * *
All
The interests of male and female are sometimes complementary and sometimes in conflict. People’s relations are legitimate when based in freedom and consent.

Therefore prostitution is best understood as on a continuum of the harmony of male and female.
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 5 May 2011 12:11:27 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
"In other words you DO support imprisoning men for prostitution for no other reason than that it be illegal for women."

Yes. It is not rocket science. Phrasing such "as no other reason" is clearly designed to distort the intent of my argument.

Despite your manipulative effors, if sex for sale is deemed illegal clearly both the consumer and the provider are liable and contributing to the 'crime'.

If one buys stolen goods knowing it is illegally obtained merchandise they share accountability and accessory to the crime.

If one sells drugs the user and the seller are liable.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 5 May 2011 2:12:28 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
'To say that, just because someone feels lonesome, therefore they are experiencing “violence” is just silly.'

'now maintaining that there was violence, but no perpetrator. Sorry, but that’s just idiotic. '

Haha. Too true. I thought it was just me who thought those sentiments were hilarious.

Jewls,

'Isn’t it the same thing?'
Ya darn tooten!

Passages like that are totally ludicrous. This is what I object to in 95% of feminist commentary. Far fetched emotional hyperbole. It's a perfect parody of feminism, just applied to men.

For the life of me I cant understand why people who emote drivel such as this get opinion columns constantly published in our national papers. You'll get an article of that type of quality every few days in the Age or the SMH and on OLO.

Then when I put them up to ridicule here on OLO, all the female posters reckon I'm a woman hater of something. It just blows my mind. SO I aim to match these kind of feminist sophistry and emotional hyperbole and apply it to men as much as I can and see if anyone takes it seriously, and nobody does.

How do the opinion columnists get such credibility then? They get paid for writing the same stuff just with women as the downtrodden. This is what messes with my mind.

PS: I want to know what ISN't a human rights abuse. I wish I had it around when I was a teenager, I would have been constantly berating my parents for violating my human rights.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 5 May 2011 3:51:44 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
Pelican
I asked whether you support punishing anyone for prostitution.

You replied:
“I have already said NO with the exception that you cannot imprison one without the other if it is deemed illegal.”

But that is not an “exception”. It’s a total negation of what you just said. You ARE in favour of imprisoning people for prostitution and FOR NO REASON other than that it’s illegal regardless of the fact that it’s consensual and harming no-one.

“I am clearly distinguishing between consensual arrangements…”
You are NOT distinguishing between consensual arrangements and non-consensual arrangements, nor between consensual arrangements in premises you approve of versus premises you don’t approve of, because EITHER WAY, if it’s illegal, you support violently persecuting people.

Therefore I’m not misrepresenting you, I’m not distorting what you’re saying, I’m not manipulating what you ‘ve said.

Rather, I’ve proved that what you’re saying is illogical, unprincipled, violent and hypocritical and you yourself are honest, or confused, enough to confirm it.
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 5 May 2011 3:56:33 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
Hey apart fomr Human rights, I have just looked up 'social exclusion'.

It's a rip-roaring laugh...

'Social exclusion relates to the alienation or disenfranchisement of certain people within a society. It is often connected to a person's social class, educational status, relationships in childhood[4] and living standards and how these might affect access to various opportunities. It also applies to some degree to people with a disability, to minority men and women of all races, of all sexual tendencies (the LGBT community), to the elderly, and to youth (Youth Exclusion). Anyone who deviates in any perceived way from the norm of a population may become subject to coarse or subtle forms of social exclusion. Additionally, communities may self-exclude by removing themselves physically from the larger community, for example, in the gated community model.'

ie Everybody.

'Anyone who deviates in any perceived way from the norm of a population may become subject to coarse or subtle forms of social exclusion'

Hahahahahah!

So, if I decide to take drugs, become a low life loser and bash strangers faces in for looking at me in the wrong way, They are socially excluding me! I am the Victim! Don't blame the Victim!
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 5 May 2011 3:57:16 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 would have been constantly berating my parents for violating my human rights."

Tell me about it, I've got a teenage son.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 5 May 2011 4:51:42 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
"But that is not an “exception”. It’s a total negation of what you just said. You ARE in favour of imprisoning people for prostitution and FOR NO REASON other than that it’s illegal regardless of the fact that it’s consensual and harming no-one."

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Maybe I should use caps. I have said I do NOT APPROVE of anyone being imprisoned for prostitution.

HOWEVER (read carefully) IF SOCIETY DEEMS IT ILLEGAL both parties should be liable under the law. Tell me why you think it is fair to prosecute one and not the other.

YOU are the one arguing that it is perfectly okay to arrest the woman without arresting the John.

Please don't snort anymore of what it is you are snorting if you cannot understand the written word.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 5 May 2011 5:40:50 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
Peter; You're supposing apurely physical definition of violence; But many people these days would accept a concept of 'emotional violence'. It's a concept that resonates with many peoples' experience. Lack of public health care - for instance - could also potentually cost someone their life.

Meanwhile Houellebecq laughs at the idea of homelessness or malnutrition comprising a form of violence. Then social exclusion (the reality of which can lead to suicide) is also thought a 'great laugh'. Well those who experience these don't find the experience in the least bit amusing.

Peter; You also question whether anyone should be 'forced into economic relations'. But in part that's my very point. The threat of destitution forces people into whatever kind of work they can find. And then they often cannot even collectively bargain because of a 'reserve army of labour', inadequate welfare, and effective labour conscription. Even if it's not the *state* that's *directly* forcing them - they are forced nonetheless. Also:'work for the dole' or similar labour market policies (forms of labour conscription)DO have the state *directly mandating* work - and for next to nothing.

There's been no response to my example of legal restriction of worker's right to withdraw their labour. Usually on the Right today we have this Austrian-school extreme which supposes the dismantling of the welfare state, of labour market regulation, of progressive tax - can go on until there's nothing left but the police, the army, the judiciary. All this in the name of 'liberty' and 'equilibrium'.(by comparison the old Right considered seriously ideas such as the *'social market'*)

But go on strike or stop work and they can fine you tens of thousands and maybe even put you in jail. With the Australian Building & Construction Commission there was not even a right to silence. So when all these mechanisms are laid bare what's revealed is organised violence to uphold the system and the class interests which govern it to a significant degree. Accepting the existence of such violence - 'invisible' for many - grates against our ideological assumptions - but it is real nonetheless)
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 5 May 2011 6:00:05 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
Peter quotes me:

“Whatever the social relation, though, where innocent people are hurt we have to ask questions.”

then responds:

"True. Virtually everything else you say actively contradicts that."

My original point was that to ban prostitituion would drive it underground; and with a lack of clear and open oversight and scruitiny - people could end up being hurt. Including BOTH sex-workers and clients.

I think that point stands.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 5 May 2011 6:04:59 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
Tristan off topic however "But go on strike or stop work and they can fine you tens of thousands and maybe even put you in jail"

I've worked in the electricity industry in Qld since the late 70's including during the 85 dispute. Your mob play a lot nastier game when it comes to manipulating industrial law than Joh and the nat's ever did. In that era if you played fair you were treated fairly, under Labor it's been every trick in the book to make it near impossible for smaller unions to get a fair go for their members.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 5 May 2011 6:21:38 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
Wiki stuff: Economics and gender inequity

In a study of money making in the legalized prostitution industry in the Australian state of Victoria, Sullivan (2005) noted prostitution businesses made revenues of $1,780 million Australian in 2004/5 and the sex industry is growing at a rate of 4.6% annually (a rate higher than GDP). In the state of Victoria, there are 3.1 million instances of buying sex per year as compared with a total male population of 1.3 million men.

In the state, women make up 90% of the labour force and earn, on average, $400–$500 per week, do not receive holiday or sick pay, and work on average four 10-hour shifts per week. In addition, with the overall growth in the industry since legalisation in the mid-1980s and increased competition between prostitution businesses, earnings have decreased. 20 years ago there were 3000 to 4000 women in prostitution as a whole, now there are 4500 women in the legal trade alone, with more in the illegal trade, estimated to be 4 to 5 times larger than the legal trade.

The sex industry is run by six large companies, which tend to control a wide array of prostitution operations, making self-employment very difficult. Brothels take 50% to 60% of the money paid by johns and fine prostituted women for refusing johns.

Between 1995 and 1998, the Prostitution Control Board, a state government body, collected $991,000 Australian in prostitution licensing fees. In addition, hoteliers, casinos, taxi drivers, clothing manufacturers and retailers, newspapers, and advertising agencies, to mention a few, profit from prostitution in the state. There is one prostitution business in Australia that is publicly traded on the Australian stock exchange.

Finally, gangs and other criminal elements make money in prostitution and often use their legal businesses to launder money from the illegal trade. The illegal trade is the focus of much trafficking and underage prostitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Australia

I don’t know if above or below ground matters Tristan.
Posted by Jewely, Thursday, 5 May 2011 6:27:38 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
*In the state, women make up 90% of the labour force and earn, on average, $400–$500 per week*

Ho ho ho. Any sensible working girl deals in notes, so nobody would
ever know what she earns. She also runs her own business, pretty
simple with the internet these days. If blokes paid with credit
cards, the wife would soon find out.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:43:10 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
Jeweley; Your points about the illegal prostitution industry make it clear why this sort of stuff needs to be out in the open; To criminalise the industry which is 'out in the open' would replicate the conditions you talk about more broadly. If in the 'official' industry women are being exploited, this needs to be addressed in its own right as well.

I still believe with a legal industry you have harm minimisation compared to the alternative. But as you explain the situation is far from ideal.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 5 May 2011 8:06:10 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
Did a little googling of Sullivan (2005) and prostition. The most likely references seemed to be this one http://catwa.org.au/?q=node/13 "Legalising Prostitution is not the Answer: The example of Victoria, Australia Mary Sullivan and Sheila Jeffreys"

An number of references to Mary Sullivan on other sites had (CATWA) folloowing her name.

CATWA - "The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women is a feminist human rights nongovernmental organisation that works internationally and nationally to oppose all forms of sexual exploitation. CATW has Category II Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women Australia is part of CATW International. CATW international is organised by regions. The Australian branch is part of the Asia-Pacific region which is organised from Quezon City, Philippines.

CATW Australia is a women only feminist organisation. " http://catwa.org.au/?q=node/2

If this is as it appears I'd find it pretty easy to believe that it's advocoacy "research" rather than an honest discovery of the situation. I've not read the whole report but what I have read did not give any reason to question that assumption.

The suggested $400–$500 per week for sex workers set off a few alarm bells. That does not gell with anything I hear about the industry.
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 5 May 2011 10:17:18 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
There is a fair amount of conditioning or grooming of the female victim position.”

I keep missing it, maybe you have to be a 12 year old girl to fall for it.

Posted by Jewely, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 7:22:58 PM

Remember the hysteria over that idea that artifical breast implants were causing things like cancer and illness in women?

It turned out eventually that the implants were safe, but not until after a company was bankrupted, and thousands of women received compensation that they were not entitled too.

Remember anything about the recovered memory syndrome, highly popular theraphy for a number of years.

Look at the pattern

marriage a patriarchial construct to keep women enslaved.
Recovered memory syndrome.
Breast implants and illness,
Prostitution and violence,
Myth vs reality.
http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11925

Nina Funnell, Monica Dux, Melinda Tankard Reist et al
http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11046

Must continually produce work that portrays the negative aspects of male female relationships. Extrapolating and exaggerating and esculating the hyperbole.

The point is, if the only lense is the lense of negativity then that is all they will ever see, regardless of the many positives that can and do occur every so often between women and men.

Grooming is a subtle approach, author Myrna Blythe pointed out how the editors of womens magazines sell misery and unhappiness.

The story line is repeated on Ophray, the circle, and on soaps. Even the most hard arsed sceptic would find it hard not to get sucked in.

The is much concern about the Americanization of mental illness, in other countries, and the drug companies use very effective selling campaigns, that are not all that dis-similar to how much of the feminist messages have been delivered.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 5 May 2011 10:18:28 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
'on average, $400–$500 per week, do not receive holiday or sick pay, and work on average four 10-hour shifts per week'

Sorry This doesn't sound realistic.

So in 40 hours a week, say they shag 40 people. So they get $10 a shag?
Really? If that was the case they'd all be street workers.

'Brothels take 50% to 60% of the money paid by johns'.

Hmmm. So in other words thats Brothels are charging clients $20 an hour.

Reeh he he he eaallly!

Even if they only shag 20 guys a week, that's still only $40 an hour.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 6 May 2011 8:55:47 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
Holly it depends on what part of the numbers go with what.

$1.78 billion in revenue for 3.1 million jobs is about $570 each but depending on which number you take for the number of workers there are around 47 million woman hours of labor involved (illegal businesses 4 or 5 times more workers than legal) and average work week of 4 * 10 hour days each. BTW I used the 4 times figure rather than 5 times to be generous.

For 15 hours of sex $570 is not all that bad. Given the percentage of men who treat 2 minutes as a stretch target there must be a lot of spare time available.

Assuming that all of the above is close and the business all took 60% (even from the independant operators) then it's just over $600 a week each. Still not good pay but above the range specified by the researchers.

Have I missed something?

Credible research, sure.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 6 May 2011 9:38:06 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
So who are these big corporations, did they show up anywhere R0bert?

I thought hookers would earn heaps or maybe I just figured they should earn heaps. No idea why I think that way if everyone is so happy with it being such a simple service without official qualifications required or unpleasant let alone dangerous aspects to the industry. And if the girls enjoy it so much you’d think there would be plenty of customers that get freebies or discounts for a decent two way exchange of fun that would decrease earnings.

James:“Must continually produce work that portrays the negative aspects of male female relationships. Extrapolating and exaggerating and esculating the hyperbole.”

Which causes the mens groups to come back in similar fashion. It’s going to go on forever isn’t it.
Posted by Jewely, Friday, 6 May 2011 11:43:59 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
Jewely
While ever you or CATW fail to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transactions, you are just talking moral and economic gibberish.

So prostitutes get $400 for working 40 hours; or $10 an hour?

Oh and the evil brothels dare to charge for the accommodation, lighting, heating, beds, water, insurance, employees, ads, mortgage, tax, tax and more tax? How exploitative!

The fact that people make profit from something doesn’t prove exploitation you fool, it proves that they’re providing a service that many other people *value more* than the money they *voluntarily* hand over to get the service.

Of course returns decline with increased competition! Welcome to the real world! The feminist and patriarchal argument is the same: women should have a special legal privilege, backed by force, to receive above the market rate for sexual services!

Big companies are only able to “control” an industry if and because consumers prefer their services to others’. There is *nothing* stopping consumers from preferring corner stores to supermarkets, or freelancing prostitutes to big brothels. The fact they don’t, proves superior service, not exploitation.

So what if businesses are traded on the stock exchange? I suppose that’s should be illegal too?

Trafficking and underage sex are already illegal. Other problems associated with the illegal trade are entirely the fault of those in favour of illegalizing it – like you!

Your confused argument equally proves that the clients of prostitutes are exploited by having to pay money.

What makes you think women aren’t giving out freebies and discounts?


Pelican
I don’t agree with penalizing anyone for prostitution. I’m pro-choice on everything, except aggression. So that ends any question of my hypocrisy.

But not yours.

Tristan
People, including sex workers and their clients, do not hold their liberties on condition that officious meddlers might be satisfied that they might not be hurting themselves. Therefore your point does not stand. But if it did, there’s no reason why the state should not arbitrarily criminalise any other aspect of sexuality such as homosexuality for exactly the same reason.
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 6 May 2011 12:36:46 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
(cont.)
If merely feeling lonely is to be subject to “emotional violence”, and this justifies *physical* coercion as a mean to remedy it, then obviously men’s unsatisfied sexual desire qualifies as being subject to emotional violence and unjust exclusion, for which, by your logic, such victims are entitled to use physical coercion against others as a means to obtain remedial satisfaction. So you are hoist with your own petard.

Rape, assault, fraud, false imprisonment, extortion, kidnapping, these are all illegal and that’s as it should be. Adding unprovoked physical coercion makes thing worse not better.

The rest of your argument is so deep in fallacies that space does not permit their refutation in full which would also would be off-topic.

However in short:
• Two wrongs don’t make a right. Wrongful use of state coercion somewhere else is no argument for more of it here. It’s an argument for abolishing it.
• Poverty is the original universal human condition and caused by natural scarcity. Wealth comes from social co-operation, not armed robbery by whomever and however called.
• You might as well argue that the CEOs of major banks are being exploited and violated by their employers, because without employment they would face “destitution”. It’s not true for the same reason that Australian workers don’t have to outcompete their Chinese competition by working for $1 a day – because they don’t have to! In reality, the choice is not between destitution and exploitation, but between preferring a higher wage to a lower.
• Minimum wage laws don’t require employers to pay a higher wage. They make it illegal to employ at the market rate. Thus they actively cause unemployment where the market rate is below the dictated minimum.
• (If they don’t cause unemployment, then why not make the minimum wage $100 an hour, and see what happens?)
• It’s a mystery why you think a person is better off involuntarily unemployed on a lower income, than gainfully working learning skills on a higher income. There are dozens of other government interventions, that you are in favour of,

(cont.)
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 6 May 2011 12:38:41 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
(cont.)
• which actively cause unemployment. You have no right to criticize unemployment until you oppose them all.
• Anyway, since you think employment is intrinsically exploitative (employer supposedly wrongfully expropriates surplus value) therefore you contradict yourself in valuing employment. To be consistent, you should advocate abolishing all employment.
• Even if it were true that destitution forces people into employment, it would not be true that the employer is guilty of exploiting them. On the contrary the employer, more than anyone else in the world, relieves their distress by advancing present goods – money - now, against future goods that might never be completed or sold, and the risk of which is on the employer, not the employee.
• The employer obtains no more benefit of the worker’s labour above the market rate than you do, and is no more responsible for the original fact of natural scarcity or the worker’s want of money than you are.

Result: you not established that employees, by the fact of employment, face any kind of “violence” or “exploitation”.

You have not established any justification for forcing people into economic relations, any more than into sexual relations.

So answer please: if “we” are justified in forcing people into economic relations, why aren’t we justified in forcing people into sexual relations?

But if one is unjustified, why not the other?

Personal and economic freedom provides the best solution to any of these original problems; and your theory adds only further arbitrary power that makes things worse not better.

The fallacy of your assumption that the state represents a “social contract” is exploded here: http://economics.org.au/2010/08/no-social-contract/

The fallacy of the common assumption that government represents “society” is exploded here: http://economics.org.au/2010/08/unrepresentative-government/

The difference between you and me is that I can
a) understand,
b) accurately represent to your satisfaction, and
c) refute
all your socialist theories; but you can’t do any of that to any of my theory.

* * *

The end result is that no-one has justified violating the freedom of prostitutes or their clients but by pious hypocrisy.
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 6 May 2011 12:42:08 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
Peter - you write:

"If merely feeling lonely is to be subject to “emotional violence”, and this justifies *physical* coercion as a mean to remedy it, then obviously men’s unsatisfied sexual desire qualifies as being subject to emotional violence and unjust exclusion, for which, by your logic, such victims are entitled to use physical coercion against others as a means to obtain remedial satisfaction. So you are hoist with your own petard."

So the crux of what you're getting at seems to be that you think progressive tax and welfare are on a comparable level to rape...

If that's not what you're getting at I think you need to be more careful with your choice of words.

All civilisations involve a degree of co-ercion. It's really only communism that supposes you can do away with the state and its functions in the end once and for all.

We have courts, judiciary, the army and the police to enforce our laws and our constitution. On the final anaylsis this rests on force - and violence if you will. (both in terms of funding the state apparatus, and enforcing the law)

I have a right to physical safety, and accept I must pay tax and reciprocally observe any reasonable laws as the precondition for the civilisation I live in. But how is a person's health, their access to nutrition and shelter - of a 'lesser degree' to the funding and operation of the state apparatus in enforcing the law, territorial integrity, and protecting citizens from physical violence? Why is one instance of force justified but not the other?

Regarding emotional violence I suggest readers consider the recent campaign against bullying - supported on a bipartisan basis - as due recognition that violence needs not be direct and physical in order to cause harm.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 6 May 2011 1:05:00 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
“While ever you or CATW fail to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transactions, you are just talking moral and economic gibberish.”

Wasn’t me talking it was Wiki, which I think I mentioned. Peter your knickers are well twisted over this one. Thank goodness R0bert went and worked out who they were and associated with because I’d never heard of them.

“What makes you think women aren’t giving out freebies and discounts?”

Yes I know women do, no matter what trade they are in. I'm considering if prostitutes may have set a benchmark for women and the services they have provided they could go back and charge for or if a prostitute would have a legal case against a slut for affecting business.

“Your confused argument equally proves that the clients of prostitutes are exploited by having to pay money.”

We were arguing? And I proved clients of prostitutes are exploited, wonder what consumer protection they have.

“So what if businesses are traded on the stock exchange? I suppose that’s should be illegal too?”

I’m amazed at how much you read into what my post was saying. I think you need a cup of tea and a nice lady to talk to.
Posted by Jewely, Friday, 6 May 2011 1:17:49 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 don’t agree with penalizing anyone for prostitution. I’m pro-choice on everything, except aggression. So that ends any question of my hypocrisy."

Well after all that aggressive posturing by yourself it seems we are in agreement
Posted by pelican, Friday, 6 May 2011 1:36:13 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
Jewely

<< or if a prostitute would have a legal case against a slut for affecting business. >>

Ha ha ha

I used to live in a flat in a part of town, on a street that was well known for street workers.

Until they got to know me, I had to sort push through a group of women, explaining "I live here" when arriving home at night. As for the curb drivers - all you have to be is female - even if it is first thing on Saturday morning and one is in her trakky daks, no make up, out for a run these curb crawlers will still pull over and try to negotiate. Sheesh. They were like persistent bush flies.

The only time I felt threatened was at night - had to do some serious running then - had a plan of where I would go to hide. Unlike in movies I did not head for the nearest dark, empty lane.

As for violence, both female and male sex workers are more vulnerable to attack than average citizens, women are abused more frequently simply because there are more female sex workers than male.

As Peter Hume - you are doing a major quantity of protesting there...

Fact, some humans are nasty pieces of work and commit reprehensible crimes.

As for whether prostitution itself is a form of violence against women? In most cases not. Sex workers provide a much needed service, particularly for disabled or isolated people. For other clients it is an indulgence.

However, where workers are being forced; sex slave trade, pimps or brothels taking too much from workers (one of the reasons workers prefer the streets or work from home) - clearly people are being exploited. If you are forced do something against your will, consent, choice; male or female, it is a form of violence.
Posted by Ammonite, Friday, 6 May 2011 1:57:42 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
Jewely I didn't get far enough to look for business names. I doubt that there would be more than 22 thousand women in Victoria willing to work in prostitution for 40 hours a week to get $400 to $500 a week. Reports I've heard is that people get into it because the pay is very good.

I've played with the maths a bit more.
If the quoted figures were real the average sex worker gets about $230 per job and does between 2.2 and 2.65 jobs a week (over a 40 hour week).

The closest I got to the $400 to $500 dollars per week was assuming every worker paid 60% to the house and the illegal industry is 5 times the size of the legal one, then it's about $508 per week.

None of it makes much sense, women choosing in large numbers to do a job that has a large social stigma which pay's poorly with a long working day. Brothel owners keeping large numbers of workers around to do a less than three jobs a week. Independants paying the house 60%.

The numbers are either outright fabrications or fudged (bit's of this and bit's of that) to create the picture the authors want.

Peter Hume, why not lighten up a bit? So much anger for so little benefit.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 6 May 2011 5:08:30 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
Hmm. Nothing but personal arguments, circularity and irrelevance – I suppose that’s your ways of conceding everything that’s in issue.

Ammonite
I work against my will, choice, consent. So that’s a form of violence right?

Honestly, is that the best you can do?

Jewely
“I'm considering if prostitutes may have set a benchmark for women and the services they have provided they could go back and charge for…”

I’m sure one of the reasons prostitutes are despised is because they show that there is an objective market price for sexual services which is otherwise obscured by marriage, payments in kind, and the romantic belief system. Prostitutes show that other women are charging far more while simultaneously protesting that the very idea is morally horrifying.

“…or if a prostitute would have a legal case against a slut for affecting business.”

It’s the wives who want to make a legal case against prostitutes, hence this article and its all its support from women charging capital gain and income instead of just fees.

It’s not happening at the forebrain level – that’s why none of their arguments make sense. It’s a mid-brain thing. Primitive hatred, desire to obliterate the rival and outsider, real rock-ape stuff.

Tristan
“It's really only communism that supposes you can do away with the state…”

Got a funny way of showing it then.

“Why is one instance of force justified but not the other?”

Good question, but it’s not answered by any of your theory, is it? To say you must observe reasonable laws only begs the question. If the only way of determining what is reasonable is that the government decides so, then any abuse, and all the policies and laws you oppose, must be accounted as reasonable mustn’t they?

But if not, then the question brings us to a fork in the road: either you say that might is; or we conclude that the state’s clam of a legal monopoly of coercion cannot be justified either on ethical or practical grounds. You’re blowing hot and cold with the same breath.
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 6 May 2011 7:58:07 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
Hey Ammo,

“As for violence, both female and male sex workers are more vulnerable to attack than average citizens, women are abused more frequently simply because there are more female sex workers than male.”

Yeah that’s what I imagined would be happening. Bugger having to work out escape routes just incase. Yuck.

Peter:“I’m sure one of the reasons prostitutes are despised is because they show that there is an objective market price for sexual services which is otherwise obscured by marriage, payments in kind, and the romantic belief system. Prostitutes show that other women are charging far more while simultaneously protesting that the very idea is morally horrifying.”

Dude you really have to chill. Who despises them? I don’t, I’ve known some, babysat for some when they had to go on call late, had a mate that owned a brothel. Truth be told I learnt a lot through my buddies in the trade. Weren’t that many though and none I knew got hurt thank goodness. Doesn’t horrify my morals at all, you projecting maybe?

“It’s the wives who want to make a legal case against prostitutes, hence this article and its all its support from women charging capital gain and income instead of just fees.”

Wrong again sunshine. Can’t speak for the article but I can say as a wife I don’t want to make a legal case against them.

“It’s not happening at the forebrain level – that’s why none of their arguments make sense. It’s a mid-brain thing. Primitive hatred, desire to obliterate the rival and outsider, real rock-ape stuff.”

You’re joking or just sad, can’t decide.

R0bert:”The numbers are either outright fabrications or fudged (bit's of this and bit's of that) to create the picture the authors want.”

Someone should tell Wiki I reckon. I wish I knew how to figure that stuff out.
Posted by Jewely, Friday, 6 May 2011 8:24:10 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
*The numbers are either outright fabrications or fudged*

They could well be the official tax figures. But they would
be worthless when it comes to accuracy, because its a cash
business. When people are paid in notes, nobody knows what
they really earn.

But anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that
a drug addict or any thinking female would stick around for
500 bucks a week. It certainly would not bankroll a drug
addiction problem.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 6 May 2011 8:59:06 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
No circular arguments Peter. So you do support a double standard in the scenario of the act being illegal? Your position on that point, which was my main point ignored by you, has not been made clear. Perhaps an unintentional oversight on your part.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 7 May 2011 3:18:09 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
“Who despises them?"

In case you haven’t noticed, the interfering violent know-it-alls of western society have just spent the last two thousand years criminalizing them, and now they think the enlightened thing to do is to criminalise their clients! – irrebutably presuming that the very fact their work is sexual self-evidently proves they’re obviously incompetent to decide for themselves!

Do you agree or not?
Posted by Peter Hume, Saturday, 7 May 2011 3:40:17 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
Peter:”In case you haven’t noticed, the interfering violent know-it-alls of western society have just spent the last two thousand years criminalizing them, and now they think the enlightened thing to do is to criminalise their clients! – irrebutably presuming that the very fact their work is sexual self-evidently proves they’re obviously incompetent to decide for themselves!
Do you agree or not?”

I think I agree that it is a reasonable conclusion to come to. I don’t know if criminalizing their clients means there is a presumption prostitutes are too incompetent to make decisions (had to rewrite it for my own understanding). I believe most laws are about following the money. The know-it-alls might be fully aware of just how competent your average prostitute is, but I wouldn’t go assuming it matters to them or it is the reason anything is criminalized or de-criminalised.

Is that what we were arguing about because I don’t recall that being part of the conversation. Were you thinking I was calling them dumb or something?
Posted by Jewely, Saturday, 7 May 2011 4:11:16 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
So you don't despise them, it's just that you think the fact their work is sexual proves they are incompetent to decide for themselves? Is that what you're saying?
Posted by Peter Hume, Saturday, 7 May 2011 4:28:20 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
Peter:“So you don't despise them, it's just that you think the fact their work is sexual proves they are incompetent to decide for themselves? Is that what you're saying?”

Nope and I don’t think I even hinted at it really subtly while wrapping it in obscurity.

I think us two might need a translator.
Posted by Jewely, Saturday, 7 May 2011 4:55:42 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
Looks like it. Are you in favour of criminalising anyone for participating in prostitution?
Posted by Peter Hume, Saturday, 7 May 2011 9:10:42 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
Hey Peter, no I don’t want clients or prostitutes in any trouble or taking up any court time for carrying out a usual transaction in that particular industry.

My personal feelings about the types of transactions taking place is I don’t really want prostitution to come up on careers day at school.

I’m glad that some women find it all tickityboo and enjoy their work and feel it has given them greater self esteem as well as a decent income. Also makes me all warm and fuzzy to find out men have few complaints to share about the service provided.

It’s an area where it is unfair legally to treat it differently from other businesses but in reality you’d be living in lala land to believe it’s like a church bake sale.

Accusing married women of being jealous is very strange, we already chose not to have those lives while any wife knows those women choose to provide only the sandwich and not the whole picnic.
Posted by Jewely, Sunday, 8 May 2011 9:20:29 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
"Hey Peter, no I don’t want clients or prostitutes in any trouble or taking up any court time for carrying out a usual transaction in that particular industry."

Then there is no issue between you and me; but between us and the author.

"My personal feelings about the types of transactions taking place is I don’t really want prostitution to come up on careers day at school."

Didn't want a stall next to the physiotherapists'? Probably no need to worry on that account. There have been times in history, for example in mediaeval Venice, when brothels were state-subsidised. We don't think anything's odd about football grounds, swimming pools, velodromes, or physiotherapists for that matter being state-subsidised or -provided. No doubt it's a matter of perspective. Not that I'm in favour of the state funding of prostitutes but I acknowledge that the only thing stopping it from happening, and from being viewed as legitimate, is the shifting vagaries of public opinion - the "rights-are-whatever-a-politically-significant-group-demands" belief of modern democracies. Homosexuality was a criminal offence as recently as the 1990s in some Australian states. As for prostitution, people can have what sexual relationships they want and it's none of my business. But it gets my goat when the pious and popeholimost want to start ordering people around and claim moral superiority!

"It’s an area where it is unfair legally to treat it differently from other businesses but in reality you’d be living in lala land to believe it’s like a church bake sale."

In their stresses, risks, unpleasantness, hardness, - the "disutility of labour" - most other occupations aren't much like a church bake sale either. I don't accept prostitution is a special case on that score - it's just sexual, that's all, and that's precisely what excites people's prejudice.

Accusing married women of being jealous is very strange..."

It's not so much jealousy; more of a spiteful prejudice which, if it's happening, is happening in a different part of the brain than their rational choices.
Posted by Peter Hume, Sunday, 8 May 2011 10:16:47 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
Peter:“It's not so much jealousy; more of a spiteful prejudice which, if it's happening, is happening in a different part of the brain than their rational choices.”

Where would the spiteful prejudice come from though, unless it was some chick that always wanted to be a prostitute but couldn’t for some reason.

I thought it was men that were angered at their partners actually having sex with another. While women are angered if they believed their partner has fallen in love with another. Yabby will know.

“Didn't want a stall next to the physiotherapists'?”

Nope. : )

“In their stresses, risks, unpleasantness, hardness, - the "disutility of labour" - most other occupations aren't much like a church bake sale either. I don't accept prostitution is a special case on that score - it's just sexual, that's all, and that's precisely what excites people's prejudice.”

Nah I reckon it’s because the industry does attract some real lowlifes, drugs, and endangers children plus adults at one end of the scale.

I think it is one of the special cases. I suppose I don’t believe it is an industry that polices or protects itself very well.
Posted by Jewely, Sunday, 8 May 2011 11:04:35 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
Wait, you honestly expect us to believe prostitution makes normal men into serial killers? And what is your evidence, a bunch of anecdotes from news stories?

If you knew anything at all about psychology, if you had any data to prove your point, if you even personally knew a prostitute (as I do), you might have something.

But you don't. You're just an outsider making arm-chair observations based on a few news stories.
Posted by Domarius, Monday, 9 May 2011 4:59:32 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 20
  7. 21
  8. 22
  9. All

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