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.)

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.

"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.

'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.

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.

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!