(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.

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

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

*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.

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)

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.