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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.