There are no alternatives in Victoria. Women have no choice but to take matters into their own hands. The justice system has failed women.

The importance of this article is that it alerts us to a reality. Things are improving in the western world, anyway. In Charles Dickens’s time, one in 4 women in London was a prostitute. The going rate was 4 pence - which was the cost of a night’s sleep in the dosshouse.

While I agree that many in the sex industry are being exploited, i think its dangerous to make a blanket generalisation about it. My friend is tertiary educated, drug-free and stable. She was working in the community services field and therefore making a very poor wage. She now works as an escort. In two nights she makes more than she used to in a week. It is entirely a matter of choice for her, and she feels empowered rather than exploited.

I also wonder about the effects on society if prostitution was somehow magically erased. I live in WA, as state which has thousands of mining and construction workers doing fly-in/fly-out work. For many it is almost impossible to maintain a meaningful relationship because they are away 4 or 5 weeks at a time and only "home" for 1 week. Many of these men use the services of prostitutes because it is simple, easy, uncomplicated and meets their basic biological urges. I believe that if there was no way for this to happen there would be an increase in sexual assaults.

I have been surprised by my friends experience - she enjoys her job and many of her clients are young, cashed-up blokes who just want uncomplicated, no-strings attached sex. She works when she wants, she has the choice to refuse customers she does not want to work with, and she makes 3-4 times as much money as I do in a hard graft professional full-time job. As she said to me - "which one of us is really being exploited?".

Sex is not illegal. Like everything else in our society, many people place a monetary value on it. Since it is not illegal, its sale should not be illegal either.

This article assumes that women are unable to make rational choices and that they must have them made for them. It's patronising and unfair.

Yes there are problems in the industry, but that's what the focus of reform and criticism should be leveled at, not the industry as a whole.

It is not a man's right to purchase a woman and use her for his needs. It is a woman's right to provide a legal service and be paid for it. It is a private contract between two people. You and I may find it unappealing - and I can assure you I do - but it is a private matter for the people involved.

What little is heard about such state-sponsored terrorism against women!
How many people are suffering at the hands of such injustice!
Thankyou Leigh for the article.
As a young married woman, due to have my first child, my own lovely home is far removed from such savagery. And yet, my heart suffers because I lament the loss of freedom and the violation suffered by my sisters. I also believe that the men are not assisted by 'stranger-sex' either. Whilst carnal impulses may be granted release, their capacity for intimacy is harmed.
I wonder what we can do to overturn the terrible state of affairs?

Leigh touched on a really important point in her last paragraph; that, despite the fact that we have reached new epochs of intellectual and technological enlightenment and progress, no real progress has been made sociologically in the realm of what Leigh calls "the male sex right." We still live in a world burdened by the destructive perception of male sexual entitlement and, based on the conduct of my peers (I'm a 19 year old male), it's a perception that only seems to be increasing in popularity.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude, and I'm definitely not a Bible-basher concerned about the death of morality - quite the contrary. I'm extremely permissive and open-minded and I'm borderline dogmatic in my atheism. But there's a certain point where a little moral outrage should be expected; when working girls are raped, injured and abused on the job, concerns need to be raised. There have been some probing books written recently, such as Ariel Levy's "Female Chauvinist Pigs," that place a lot of blame for the rise of "raunch culture" and the death of true sexual liberation squarely on the shoulders of women themselves. I personally think a long, hard look needs to be taken at a culture that by implication expects men to be leering, moronic animals interested in only one thing, and that the onus should be on women to protect themselves. Maybe, just maybe, men need to grow up and learn some God-damned self-control.

It seems to me that Professor Sullivan overlooks a significant point, which is that most workers at the bottom of the socio/economic heap as it were - in general workers across the private enterprise spectrum in factories, production and assembly lines, shift cleaning staff etc - are all subject to varying levels of abuse and exploitation, very low wages, very poor working conditions, and increasing economic vulnerability thanks (at least in part) to the ever increasingly draconian IR laws. It can be said that these people (as with prostitutes) opt to be what they are but such a view is naive and insensitive. Most base workers including prostitutes do not have the intellectual gifts or (as is even more important) the socio-economic mind-set needed to climb out of the morass. The vulnerable, illiterate, and economically sidelined are generally abused and exploited - there is nothing new in this. At least with prostitution there is (for a time) the possibility of higher than average earnings, together with, of course, higher than average risk.

when prostitution is illegal, prostitutes have no legal protection unless they are paying off coppers. then they are not much better off, crooked coppers are no better than the average pimp.

a women working without the protection of law is everyone's bunny. legalization hasn't cured society of being human, but it has reduced the incidence of exploitation.

a women working without a visa has effectively returned to the bad old days of illegal prostitution. they do it to escape bad conditions, and may fall into worse. the cure is not to help the traffickers, it's to catch them, and jail them.

middle class women in good families, or a secure profession, may find prostitution threatening, or demeaning. tough. to a lot of poor women, it's better than available alternatives. as for the politicians looking to make a career enhancing 'cause' out turning back the clock: i hope the australian voter is too smart to pay you much attention.

Someone once said that 'rights' do not define a democracy - 'responsibilities' do.
The celebratelove.com.au enrichment programme for married couples teaches that from our complimentary natures, husband and wife have complimentary needs and responsibilities.
One of the most interesting things which I learnt from attending a weekend recently with my husband is as follows.
A man instinctually expresses his love for his wife in a physical way. A woman tends to receive love via verbal intimacy. Sex is the core part of this communication between man and woman in marriage, however our culture has reduced sex to an activity.
Sex & sexuality means much more than an act, it includes the whole atmosphere of the home and the kind of connection between man and woman. When a couple learns to spend time (regularly) 'skin-to-skin', naked and in awe of one another, it is very affirming of the whole-person nature of our sexuality. Also, in the context of God having gifted us with sexuality, we need to be bold enough to pray for Passion in our marriage. Thereby the limited and observed experience of married life from our own childhood need not be the determining factor for how we can love.
Her fear of abandonment (emotional and physical) and his hurt at rejection means that they each must learn the art of verbal intimacy as well: to listen and share with eachother without being judgemental or withholding information which may make a difference to the other person if they could be told. The website may include information about the listening process, whereby each one can name and embellish with images and words which identify the itensity with which they felt what they did.

What you describe sounds to me like the Western capitalist economic model of supply and demand in a competitive market is working pefectly, Leigh.

I couldn't think at the age of 65 I would have much to say about this subject but I do have a comment or two...

Firstly not all women who participate in prostitution dislike the experience. I flatted next to a woman many years ago, who was the mistress of a doctor and she was very satisfied with the arrangement. At one stage offering to introduce me to one of his mates because she felt so very comfortable in her skin about it. It just wasn't my scene personally, so I declined her offer.

However as a young woman living in St Kilda at the time I was very grateful that there were women who were willing and able to accomodate the guys who needed a physical relief from a very natural act. Prostitutes do a service to the community I believe by being available to take the steam out of what could become intolerable if sexual intercourse between two strangers was outlawed. I personally think they're very brave and many have paid with their lives, I couldn't go to bed with a man I didn't know, but that is not to say that if someone else can, then go for it. It is a service, using one's body, taking all of the risks both physcially and health wise so surely they're entitled to be paid.

I believe in choice for the individual, and mostly men are honorable so the girls are usually safe. But it should be their choice!

I feared that you were going to tell us that prostitution had to be outlawed, and mercifully, you didn't. As others have pointed out, we know what happens when you outlaw something that people want or want to do that they themselves regard as private (drink, drugs and sex are the three great examples): the police force becomes corrupted, and before long some at least of the politicians are as well.

In your last two paragraphs you mentioned the Swedish stand, and I am sure many of us would like to know about it, and whether or not it has been successful, and how we or they would know.

(The pedant in me points out to someone that the heading should start: 'Whose rights...')

I recently came across some material supposedly put together from comments by sex workers (http://www.pleasureactivism.org/goff_reply.html) in response to Stan Goff's article "The Porn Debate" (http://www.xyonline.net/Goff_Porn_debate.shtml).

Some interesting comments in there.

R0bert

This is really well argued article.
Wouldn't it be great if mothers on the pension didn't have to earn that bit extra for the kids. That the women without an education could get a decent job. That society allowed men to pleasure each other more. That sexually transmitted diseases could be wiped out. That sexual gratification becomes normal and not confused with religion and politics. That sex workers get the same employment rights as other workers. That sex becomes fun and not violence. That sex stops being obsessive compulsive. That people become kind and not cruel.
Where is that perfect world?

Which women/men who are prostituting themselves are we talking about? The men and women working at street level, or the ones who marry for money and social prestige. If we are going to talk legalities I think the whole topic and stratagem of sexual accommodation should be reviewed. Otherwise highlighting the street worker alone is feigned politics not true social concern And falling back on the tired and oft abused, man as perpetrator of prostitution is more of the continual one sided sexism put forward by feminist to portray woman as victim. They conveniently forget many men are also sex workers.
Anyone who has done any work (with the many different people) in the sex trade know, that the women themselves were recruited or given the knowledge and opportunity by other women. And the same goes for the men.
There is no conspiracy to trap anyone into the sex trade other than that persons own morality or lack there of.

"The US Government has intimated that after drug dealing, trafficking of humans is tied with arms dealing as the second largest criminal industry in the world, with the majority of people trafficked for sexual exploitation."

I know the above statement is emotive, however just imagine for a minute that maybe the vast majority of people who are trafficked is not for the sex trade, but mostly men who do menial work for extremely low wages or boys who are kidnapped to serve as combatants in wars.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey124.htm

Every so often we hear about the bodies of illegal immigrants being washed up on the shores of some country like Turkey.

Boys or men working as slaves just don't carry the same emotional impact as girls workings sex slaves!

Laws prohibiting prostitution no matter male /female are a moral issue rather than the protection from harm in our society.

People should be able to choose what form of work they do with the same legal protection of any other job. Never forced or only option. As well as services should be provided such as councelling, help etc. A lot of jobs carry risks but not with as much controversy or media coverage.

By no means does prostiution replace an intimate caring relationship. Unfortunately not everybody has the ability, opportunity, or the want for a relationship.

This is gender politics disguised.

Prostitutes are also male. Catering to male and a growing female clientle. Never hear about that. How unusual.

The power/exploitation driven victimolgy is par for the course in todays society. Someone is always 'taking advantage of', whatever that means.

A client exploits a prostitute like a junkie exploits a drug dealer.

Now, to put it in those typically banal self pitying victimology terms thats so popular these daze... has anyone ever considered, that the natural sex drive of some people is being expoited for a dollar? l mean, what sort of person blames you for the hand that nature dealt you.

Oddly enuff, back on the gender politics front, female cheavinism is define as women who let other women down by buying into male chaevenistic projection of what women should be. Oh, the irony. What a wounderfully political revisionary hackfest. A cheavinist is someone who makes an unearnt claim to superiority based on arbitrary qualifications like, gender, race, religion, nationality. Its not a gender specific term. Thus, a female cheavinist is a woman who perceives herself as superior due to her sex. There's more than a few women like that about. Whatever, the baser, more negative sort of equality is in vogue these days.

Another lovely intellectual slight of hand is the idea of 'legalising' something. You dont need permission to do a thing. You can only sanction particular types of behaviour. Sex for money cannot be 'legalised.' It can only be DECRIMINALISED. Of course, one can use a whole host of subtleties to disguise payment. Like gifts, paid trips, dinners, paying the rent, etc.

The article is a bit twisted and makes good use of misrepresentation.

Strange how everyone is in favour of people whoring themselves but no one wants their daughter or wife to be one.

runner, an interesting perspective on the debate. I've not read any posts which I would interpret as posters being in favour of people whoring themselves. Plenty who suggest that others should have the freedom to do so if they wish.

There are plenty of things I'd rather my son does not do, that does not imply that I think others should be banned from doing those things.

R0bert

In response to this article, some people have said that women should have the freedom to sell themselves in the sex industry. It's strange though that women rather than men overwhelmingly "choose" sex work (Sex Worker Outreach Project have said women make up around 90 percent of sex workers - a figure consistent with other research). This is very different to politics, for example, where the vast majority of politicians are men. Why aren't men entering the sex industry in droves if it is so fabulous?

Moreover, in other traditionally female occupations such as nursing, men can do the job as well as women. Now, imagine if a client at a brothel was told no women are available today but we have several men who can do the job just as well. He wouldn't be too happy. There are male prostitutes of course but they tend to have male clients.

There is something fundamentally wrong with an industry that relies on the fact that the workers must be women as a prerequisite. There is almost no other industry like it. It's an industry where workers are paid to get sexually molested. This makes it unique and problematic.

The men, women, transsexuals and transgendered people I know who are active in the sex trade would not appreciate any one referring to their chosen employ as molestation. Molestation means to annoy, disturb, or persecute, to force physical and usually sexual contact on. They are not being forced through payment. They offer a service for payment and do not see themselves as being persecuted. Some make rather lucrative incomes and do not consider themselves victims. Many describe it as being socially and sexually empowering and allows them to be fully in charge of their life. There is a whole subculture here, it is not a pool of female victims tied to lamp post to be assaulted by men in passing. Though there is the rare exception, the image of the male pimp bashing about the local harlot for her meager earnings is best left to the really bad B movies.
Today where there may be a pimp it is more like a madame and very female.

Whether it's a male pimp or a female brothel owner, I think you'll find that the people making the most money out of prostitution don't have to touch the customers. And while some sex workers will say they enjoy what they do, it is interesting that men don't seem to be flocking in droves to take up positions in this fun and lucrative industry. This makes it very different to IT or the mining industry where opportunities exist for much better pay than anything the sex industry offers - at least at customer service level.

Regardless of objections about the term "molestation", prostitution is different to virtually all other forms of work in that the distinction between sexual harassment and doing the job disappears. If a boss tried touching his/her PA in return for more money, the PA would have every right to call the police. Even strippers draw the line at sexual contact.

I realise sex work can be much better paid than cleaning or childcare. That tells you more about conditions in those industries than it does the joys of giving strangers blow-jobs.

If women had to pay for sex men would be prostituting themselves. However, men barter for sex, for relationships, for marriage. Women in general don't. It's enough they show up and they have a choice. Reverse that reality and your socio-sexual thesis of victimisation ends abruptly. As more and more women obtain wealth they are less likely to marry and "dating" and "gifting" are new terms in the female empowerment lexicon. Welcome to the 21st century. And strippers don't draw the line at anything. You have just got to offer the right incentive, money. And be discrete. It's the law and the club management that draw lines, and they're only enforced in the open.

Aqvarvius - Your participation in forums concerning prostitution, sexual molestation and domestic violence continually present you as having intimate and comprehensive knowledge of these spheres.

As has been suggested by other posters, if this is because of your work, then I suggest you are in the wrong occupation. Your lack of comprehensive knowledge (note the qualifying adjective "comprehensive", please), unwillingness to admit fair and balanced viewpoints, lack of human compassion and calumnious generalisations, whether created by work burn-out or by allowing personal experiences to colour all other considerations, inevitably lead one to the above conclusion.

Adopting a nom de plume does not entitle you either to make libellious statements such as "strippers don't draw the line at anything". This is gross defamation.

Do you include the author as one of the "feminists, who conveniently forget many men are sex workers"? If so, please note she specifically introduces her subject as "human" (i.e. not gender specific) trafficking. She also clearly condemns the "sex trafficking of millions of people" (once again, not gender specific) and introduces the fact (unarguable by anyone's standards) that these people are "mainly women and girls". Thus she is not "forgetting" males, merely flagging that her article will concentrate "mainly" on the majority of human traffic.

Once again, other posters have suggested that there is no impediment to you or anyone else posting well-researched, factual articles concerning the male minority in these issues.

Read this article again: there is no colourful or hyperbolic suggestion concerning women chained to lamposts - the coersion and entrapment is characterised in more insidious ways. Neither is the fact, culled in part from The Prostitutes Collective of Victoria, that 7 out of 10 sex workers (no gender specifics here) wanted out supportive of the picture of the happy hooker which your intimate associates appear to have painted for you.

We would also all benefit from empirical data from police statistics or Sex Worker associations substantiating the claim that to-days pimps are "very female".

p.s. - To whoever asked? Googling the words "1999 swedish government legislation prostitution" brings up 332,000 sites to choose from.

The women's rights movement fought against gender discrimination, so I find it interesting, the proposals to criminalize the purchasing of sex and not the selling of sex.

If one wants to fight against prostitution, should both the seller and the buyer be prosecuted?

Or are we on the dawn of a new era of having one law for men and another set of laws for women?

Always surprises me that other women have to frame sex work within poverty to understand how sex workers can (and indeed would choose to) have sex with men for money.

In fact there are many of us who do sex work, of course for the money, but also because we enjoy it. Personally, I have found in sex work the space to experiment sexually in a highly negotiated way that I control. Sometimes my work includes soft, intimate, teasing, tickling and touching and other times it can be playful, active, aerobic.

I think the obsession by anti sex work feminists with controlling and misinterpreting the experiences of sex workers is perverse.

The Swedish model doesn't work. The concept is completely flawed. Only non sex workers could have dreamt up the idea that criminalising the 'buyers' of a service would not have a detrimental impact on the 'sellers' of the services. The real impact of the criminalisation of clients is that clients (in order to avoid detection) dont go to the homes of sex workers (where many of us prefer to work) because a building is easier for police to surveil. So we (the women used to the comfort of our homes) have to go out and meet clients in public spaces, bars etc.

Having spoken to many individual sex workers in Sweden both on line and in person it is clear to me that the Swedish model does not stop the industry but does severley inconvenience the women in the industry and means that we often do jobs in spaces that we have not set up for the purpose and without our own support networks nearby.

Again I think a little less meddling in what is thought to be better for us and a bit more listening to what we are shouting clearly would help.

We want our work and our clients decriminalised! We don't want re-training! We don't want our sisters from South-East-Asian countries labelled as sex slaves! and we don't want your help!

Debbby-doesn't-do-it-for-free

Romany, Why not come onto this thread with something to add to the conversation rather than personal assaults and self-righteousness. Get out and talk to some of the real people for a change rather than holding to the ones you think you can manipulate with your political feminism. There are eight to fourteen women at any one time working the street just down the road from me. I talk with them many a night and always stop in passing to see if all is well and they are safe, give out condoms and other street survival bits. Sometimes safe drug use kits depending whos in the neighbourhood. Not one of them is being forced to work or being battered by a male. They all come from other conventional work forces and have made the decision for themselves and began by inquiring and seeking out other women who knew the ropes. Same for the gay men and the trannies I know that work their own areas and have their own client lists. Prostitution is a multidimensional subculture with in our society and not some basin of victimization or some sick feminist caricature of pseudo-male dominance.
As for your “libellious statements such as "strippers don't draw the line at anything". This is gross defamation.” BS! First little miss self-righteous get your self a dictionary. If your going to use emotive language at least use it in context. Secondly,that comment was made in reference to DavidJS, “Even strippers draw the line at sexual contact.” Which in itself is a grossly misrepresented statement. Secondly, as I have posted. It is not the strippers per-se who draw the lines, rather the law and how they are enforced by individual management. Many strippers both dance and hook. It's a fact. Get over yourself.

A big thank you goes out to Debbie. Good post. And you make some very valid points on working environment and support networks. On my excursions through the streets I spend a lot of time with the drug addicted girls and boys that use prostitution to facilitate their habit.

Control is an interesting word. Money controls the sex of prostitution. The person paying has control. With out the cash the clothes stay on. I am sure a very small minority of men and women do like the work of prostitution but that is not to say that the vast majority are working in the industry because there is no where else they can earn that same money, (and from the working girls I have known it is never as much as you would think given the amount of "rent" paid per “client” for their room in a legal brothel – often classed as “self employed” so the brothel owner has no work place responsibility for them). The fact is that poverty and the associated need for money is why most women and men work in prostitution - if they were able to earn an equivalent income, (often not that much), out side of this field they would. But often due to the effect those previous experiences of violence or a previous criminal conviction have on a person it is difficult to see any other choice than one on offer and that is prostitution.

It is interesting that some still think that men “need” a “woman/girl” or “man/boy” for sexual satisfaction. I think in regard to prostitution what they seek and pay for is sexual control and power. If they need gratification they always have the option of solo sex. The power that cash gives them to have sex with a person they choose who would otherwise not have sex with them what men pay for. They get off on this power being able to pay for sex and then keep going back for more.

I do think that the “sex industry” should be legal as if it were not it would surly be whole lot worse for those women/men who are prostitutes. The industry requires much tougher regulation and enforcement of this regulation including exit programmes.

"On my excursions through the streets I spend a lot of time with the drug addicted girls and boys that use prostitution to facilitate their habit." I think that statement tells you that all is not rosy in the sex industry. However, with prostitution you can earn enough money to feed a drug habit - as opposed to bar work or house cleaning. And prostitution does have more flexible hours than being a bank teller. But all that shows is that those sort of jobs have poor pay and conditions. It doesn't make prostitution any better.

In terms of choice, people choose to gamble and take drugs. They will also say they enjoy taking drugs and blowing their money on the pokies. I'm not one to stop them but it doesn't make these choices healthy or desirable. In fact, I think prostitution should be decriminalised wherever there are laws against it. But I don't think it should be legalised otherwise we'll end up like we have with gambling - where the government becomes dependent on the tax revenue and so has a stake in expanding the industry.

I still think you can't dismiss the elephant in the bedroom (pardon the cliche) of sex work being so gender biased. Do we ignore that fact that men, rather than women, end up in prison? Do we not worry that men, rather than women, become victims of assault? If prostitution is a great career path I reckon at least 50 percent of sex workers would be male.

DavidJS, the start line of the authors assertions and 'politics' of prostitution per feminism is highlighted by her articles leader. “Governments must be prepared to challenge the presumption that men have a right to purchase and use women sexually for their own needs.” The presumption is the authors as she puts prostitution squarely at the foot of men and as an “assumed” right of men. And is unwilling as are some female posters, to acknowledge that prostitution is a service for pay. It's like saying people have a right to shop at Cole's. They don't. It's not a right it's a business relationship and purchase value is constantly being defined by supply and demand. I'm honest enough to talk about all aspects of prostitution and have never intimated that all is rosy. However for every sad case one can highlight as example there is also the woman choosing the work and not being a victim of male “need” but, rather profiting quite handsomely because of it.
Prostitution is gender biased because quite frankly men have money and some women want it and provide a service in exchange for getting that money. AND as I pointed out earlier women today as they acquire wealth by their own efforts are not marrying and are taking up the use of male prostitution, escorts, arrangements, gifting and any other number of sexual relationships outside of the conventional marriage bed. As more wealth comes into the hands of women more men will become prostitutes because the demand will be there. There is violence associated with the sex trade, however there is also an implied less than humanness applied to prostitutes by society which makes allowances for such violence as an expectation. Prostitution is ageless and will undoubtedly be with us forever. We can always change how we view sex and mature as a society and mitigate that violence and that conception of prostitute as being less than human. It's all a matter of social attitudes and will.

Somehow I can't see the number of men increasing in prostitution to remove the gender imbalance. There are more lucrative opportunities for them in other trades and professions, including the management of brothel chains - as opposed to customer service. It's probably hard to measure but I think most women would also prefer most other jobs than sex work. From what I hear about sex work, women are going into the industry because their previous job (if they had one) was way more awful or less paid. However, if they contract HIV I dare say their previous job may not have seemed so bad after all.

I can think of women who have moved from professions such as teaching to librarianship or from the law into policy. The move from one job into prostitution is likely to do with the urgent need to eat and pay rent rather than a more leisurely consideration of career paths. Btw, I'm talking worldwide here - not just about select brothels in St Kilda or Darlinghurst.

Also thinking about the issue of "choice" I know of some people who seem to be homeless by choice. It doesn't really make homelessness any better. And I don't know of anyone who has chosen to be a barrister to fuel their drug habit. That comes later :-)

The “sex-trade” can be divided into two categories: first, those freely responding to economic circumstance and opportunity and then secondly, those who are trapped by pimps or slavers and intimidation to provide such services under duress.

The first category are no different to anyone else making a living in life. However, I trust they are fully prepared to live with the consequences of their choices and pay the price those choices may impose upon them.

The second category are victims. They are entitled to be protected from such exploitation and laws which legalised prostitution in this state were not intended to excuse or legitimise such exploitation.

Personally, I have always thought that prostitution demeans both the prostitute and those who seek their services. The prostitute for accepting money from something which should be more highly valued and the punter for accepting that the only way to relieve his desires is to pay hard cold cash for it (although I would also accept that having been twice married, I might well have found greater “comfort and satisfaction” in the arms of an experienced and willing professional than those of the anxious and self-conscious novice constrained by acute inhibitions).

However, I will always err to view supporting the freedom of individuals and their right to decide for themselves what moral standards they will choose provided they are prepared to accept that I will decide on what moral standards I will be guided by.

Aqvarivus - ouch! That "self-righteous" label bit rather deep.

I went back over previous posts to see how what I wrote could possibly give that impression but knowing exactly what one meant when one wrote blinds one to other interpretations. So I can only say: I'm not.

And "assault" mate? I suggested you were suffering from burn-out. I did not state/insist/accuse or in any other way use the didactic form to frame this opinion.

Your generalisations regarding others and obsessive insistence in neatly labeling them into categories do not characteristise one whose work is still approached with an open mind.

Eg: "get out and talk to some real people for a change"? Apart from providing amusement, adequately illustrates what box you've erroneously put me into!

Street-corner chats with 8, 14, or even 20 people as an outsider does not give one a balanced overview of the sex industry.

Nor reason to state "There is no conspiracy to trap anyone"; to dismiss the fact that there are people living in misery because "the people I know" are happy; or to underplay the plight of the majority who are exploited because there are a minority (which - I stress again - no-one has argued against)of another gender concerned.

You and the author represent polarised points of a huge and complex question. The truth lies somewhere in between.

Being well aware of the meaning of libel I stick to my assertion that your statement re strippers is indeed the publication of a false statement damaging to persons' reputations.

It is beliefs of that kind that make life difficult for those men and women who do not mix stripping with hooking.

Nor is it a true statement that it is the clubs etc. who draw draw the line. Some do, some don't. It is demeaning and insulting to assume that the only thing keeping strippers "moral" is a management ruling.

I am so tired of reading Mary Lucille Sullivan's rhetoric disguised as research.

It is just totally inaccurate to say that sex workers are trained into prostitution through sexual abuse - recent research done by Charrlotte Seib (PhD thesis - QUT) and Jake Najman et al (Selling Sex in Queensland 2003) in Queensland show that Sullivan's ridiculous figures (80-90%) are wrong. In the Najman et al study the rate of "unwanted childhood sexual activity" was 23%. It is disgusting of Sullivan to perpetuate these lies, figures taken from a study by an American psychologist, whose prostitute patients were already seeking therapy.

Furthermore, the high drug use hysteria is rubbish as well. Also well researched and found to be no higher than the general population.

Sullivan would call me a pro-prostitution lobbyist but I'm really a lobbyist for women (and men's) rights to have sex with whoever they want under whatever arrangements they decide. Why is selling sexual services such an affront? Really?

Sullivan has got to admit that her real reasons for despising sex for sale has more to do with some sort of morality she has around sex as the sacred temple of monogamy. Well that's fine for her (and I kind of like having sex with only one person that I don't charge a fixed fee to also - these days), but no right to sell sex? How dare she?

Candi F

Hey Billy C,
You say "The fact is that poverty and the associated need for money is why most women and men work in prostitution"
We all have a need for money - not just people living in poverty. It is the reason most people work at all.

I'm over the sex workers do sex work because they have no alternative income options line. "...- if they were able to earn an equivalent income, (often not that much), out side of this field they would." I have often had a straight job earning good money at the same time as doing sex work and am not unlike my co-workers.
What doesn't ring true about your post is your lack of acknowledgement of the diversity of the women, men and trans sex workers. Same criticism goes for the other poster on this stream who thinks we simply fit into two neat cateogories. Take any 'girls room' in any brothel (or any street working strip) and you will have an array of opinions, beliefs, reasons for choosing sex work, reason for staying or stopping etc. We are just not as easily pigeon holed as the mainstream media would have you believe.

You are way off the mark with "I think in regard to prostitution what they seek and pay for is sexual control and power." I makes it clear to me that you have never been in the room as a sex worker with a client that knows you are way more experienced sexually than he is and completely out of his league in skill level and is completely intimidated/shy/nervous/experiencing performance anxiety etc. There is rarely bravado or control or power.

Why is it difficult to believe that two parties consenting to a mutual agreeable exchange could both get what they want.

As for 'exit programmes', I haven't needed help typing a resume since I left school. If I want a change of pace or scenery I know where the door is and do not require assistance to find it. thanks anyway......

Debby-doesn't-do-it-for-free

Some snippits:

"young, cashed-up blokes who just want uncomplicated, no-strings attached sex."

Then from GOlisa
"By no means does prostiution replace an intimate caring relationship"

Runner has a good point "No one wants their daughter or wife to be one"

No matter how relaxed some who are invovled in this practice may appear on the surface, or.. to what level they have rationalized it into the 'there is nothing really right or wrong, and this works for me' basket....

I contend that the reduction of our bodies to the level of a commodity for sale, while at the same time, our bodies being the instrument of the expression of our deepest human desires and needs, -is damaging.

In Asia, they say you only object to the smell of pigs under the longhouse until you get used to it.. then..its the norm.

There is only a 'moral' issue here, if we accept that there is some moral standard to which we are all accountable. If we are nihilists, believing that there is nothing to believe in, prostitution is the least of our worries, as many worse things will arise with THAT foundation (mass genocide of inconvenient peoples).

When Jesus said to the woman caught in 'adultery' 'Go..and sin no more' (after those who were condemning her all faded away when he said "he who is without sin may cast the first stone").. he really mean't it. Sex outside of marraige 'is' Sin. It's no more 'sinful' than many other things we do in our own heads.. how we think of people etc, but it is sin, and while we can survive many other types, this one might do lasting damage.

One symptom of that damage would be a man who just wants "uncomplicated, no strings attached sex"

And Jesus said to the blind man. "What do you see"? He said "I see men, but like trees walking" Jesus touched his eyes again and he saw everything clearly.
Perhaps we all need that special touch.. from Him.

Hey Debbie

The clients would not be in the room without the money. You distract but fail to argue the basic premise of my original post.

I am sure you are a shining example of the lucky few that are able to exercise genuine choice in their lives. I am sure that you are indeed a part of the small minority of men and women who do like the work of prostitution. But just because your own story is so fantastic does not mean you should not support the provision of services to those who are not as privileged as yourself.

Indeed money is big motivator for all of us but only a few “choose” prostitution. As DavidJS has said – if it is such a fantastic career path why isn’t the rest of society fighting for those job’s rather than mostly the poor and disenfranchised? Why does the industry need to indenture the trafficked? And what about the wonderful relationship between pimps and workers?

You might be over it but you can only speak for your self. And as for “doesn't ring true” I think the readers can look at all these posts including yours and decide for themselves which ones “don’t ring true”.

Romany, whenever you read or write the plural form of an article(profession, objects, people, etc.)you do not have the advantage of calling for specifics to argue a generality. You have every right to interpret what you selectively read and omit with whatever attitude you wish to bring to any discussion. However you do not have the right to foster that selective reading or your negativity onto others as if they made you think in such a way. It's your interpretation own up to it. I'm certainly not going to apologise to you for your thinking on any subject. Try adopting a more holistic view of events not simply picking away while offering nothing in return but further divisiveness.
I'm speaking in general terms of what is taking place in Australia. If I started with specifics the 350 word limit wouldn't explain fully my opening sentence of each individual experience. I have highlighted both the professional and the victim with in prostitution. If women and children are being bound and secreted into Australia for the purpose of sexual exploitation then I suggest that it is not an issue of prostitution but a failure of the many institutions of Police.
Sex work should be about free choice and social responsibility and acceptance, not threat, coercion and physical abuse, or a backdrop for drug abuse. And the people, men and women doing such work shouldn't be pushed back off a street corner in the dark of night and maligned by the general public. You may feel less sexually threatened with such an arrangement but, that is where the threat to the prostitutes is most prevalent. With prostitution being kept in the dark. Something dirty and evil. And for anything to change, that attitude must change. The totality of the negatives of prostitution is inherent in the social attitudes towards sex, sexual behaviour and prostitution, and bringing these attitudes of sex into the light of day will go far in removing the abuses that occur by the action of keeping them confined to the night, unseen, unspoken.

billy - you and others ask why the rest of society is not fighting to get those jobs. Some ideas

- Social stigma attached to the job at the moment. Plenty of bigots around prepared to look down on sex workers and treat them as inferior. I guess that would put many of us off.
- Personal views about the morality of prostitution. There are a number of jobs which others do that I'd be reluctant to take on - lawyers make plenty of money and plenty of us have used their services who would not want the job.
- Ideas about job satisfaction and working conditions. My dentist makes a lot more money than me but I'm not keen for his job either.
- Personal views about sexuality and intimacy. People do all sorts of stuff sexually that most of us would not choose to do ourselves even if we accept others rights to do so.
- Inability of partners to deal with it. I suspect that not many partners are secure enough to cope with the associated issues of prostitution.
- The hours. I'm guessing that the job involves a lot of night work. Not ideal for all of us.
- Limited opportunities for a significant percentage of the population - I doubt that I'd make much. Gender, age, physical appearance etc all impact on ability to do well in that occupation. Just as there are not many elderly, obese women playing first grade Rugby League.

The list could go on but that might give you a start.

R0bert

Hey RObert

You forgot the mention the job risks: Broken condoms, (HIV & other infections), beatings, rape and verbal abuse just to name a few. Not to mention the conditions. No workers comp insurance in this field or income security for that matter. The one big ticket item you leave off your long list is GENUINE CHOICE. I think most people do not go into prostitution because they are able to exercise genuine choice in their lives not to. Many are not so privileged.

I would suggest that prostitution can only exist in societies where sex is regarded as disgusting and women are considered second-class citizens. People who speak out against prostitution are often called Victorian moralists. Interesting how Victorian London had a huge number of prostitutes in proportion to its population (see Priestley's The Victorians). There you had women who were "Madonnas" ie: the wives of so-called respectable businessmen. And you also had the "whores" condemned by the same middle-class keepers of virtue. Of course these supposed keepers of virtue were turning up to the nearest brothel and obviously leaving the wife at home. The existence of prostitution depends on lies and hypocrisy. And it also partly depends on the oppression of gays. If young men were not turfed out of home for being gay, business at The Wall in Darlinghurst would be down.

Getting rid of sexism and homophobia may be a tall order but it doesn't alter the fact that in sexist and homophobic societies, prostitution thrives. Not to mention badly paid working conditions in other jobs I've aluded to previously.

Billy I did touch on conditions but admittedly was not thinking of the risks of assault. It's not a job I'd choose nor a service I choose to use but my preferences should not stop others.

As to choice - maybe an issue in the third world but I doubt that there are many being "forced" into prostitution in this country. Well not much more so than most other people who could find something better to do with their time if they could get the same money doing something they prefered to do.

The job has risks but then I used to be a sparky, took the occasional electric shock on that job. I guy I used to work with recently had his second major accident at work, another was seriously burned years ago, another was killed on his way home from work.

David, I tend to agree with the idea that prostitution may be a consequence of some sick ideas in society about sex and relationships. Where we try and force people into particular moulds (hetro and monogamous being the standard). People who's sexual preferences are outside societial norms tend to be forced to act in secret. As you may have noticed gays still have to deal with bigots who consider homosexual behaviour unnatural, sick etc. The situation facing those who don't embrace monogamy does not seem all that different. Maybe there would be little need for prostitutes if Polyamory was more widely accepted as a legitimate choice.

R0bert

What a lot of silliness about prostitution. I really enjoyed Debbie’s posts. Would think a conversation with you could be very educational.

Re all the issues that beset sex-workers; those need to be addressed. Not prostitution itself. Sex in exchange for money is a moral issue. Some think it OK, some think it is sinful. Making prostitution or obtaining the services of a prostitute criminal is not going to solve or make any issues go away. It would only make them worse by driving aspects of the industry underground.

The more openness there is, the more accountability there will be. Only this way can issues be dealt with, and criminal activity, like human traficking policed.

A drug habit supported through sex work sounds a much better option than break and entering or mugging little old ladies of their pension money.

As to the opinion that this kind of sex is degrading to women. What a sanctimonious load of rot.

How many men who are married think it is quite OK to demand sex from their wives? Some even think it OK to subject a woman to ‘rougher than usual handling’ to coerce her. Rape in marriage is still a contentious issue. It apparently cannot happen according to some. After all, doesn’t the husband have rights after bringing home the bacon? Sounds like sex for money to me.

How many men think it OK to ask a woman for sex after a night out after spending some money on her? There would hardly be a wife, daughter or sister out there who has not experienced that. Sex for a pitiful meal out? That’s not going to pay the rent.

How many men think it OK to coerce a woman to sex after ‘she’s led him on’? That’s a freeby! These are the kind of guys who boast that they NEVER have to pay for sex.

There are times when sex can be experienced as degrading by a woman, but in prostitution it would happen less often then out there in the suburbs without ‘payment’.

Aqvarivus, I don't agree when you maintain that it is permissible to read/write an article selectively, omitting whatever does not suit.

As a journalist I find that dishonest. And as an academic I believe texts should be read objectively.

I do agree however, that those who are selective shouldn't try to push this view onto others. To do so blaming those others would indeed be bizarre behaviour. And yes I agree one is responsible for ones own interpretations and must own up to them.

As to your stated purpose in not apologising to me for the way I think? Good heavens, man, what a strange notion!

Bit confused as to why you advise me to "adopt" an holistic view? As you then seem to have switched from talking about texts to "events" I confess I remain confused.

Regarding "picking away"? The nature of debate is to challenge another's stance and to provide evidence and reason/s for an alternative viewpoint.

However I understood perfectly the para beginning "What I'm saying is.." If that is what you were indeed saying the detours into gender crap, specifics informing generalities and gratuitous advice served to obfuscate a view I, and I'm sure many others agree with 100%.

End of "divisivness".

Romany, you pounced with out reading and twisted what words you chose for your justification. Please don't at this date say you did it all in the name of debate. You have offered no debate but backhanded insult and belittlement from post one. Not once in this thread have you posted opinion. And please stop with the sanctimonious "I'm sure I can speak for everyone". Though I guess you would need to gather support for your personal attack and lack of substantive topical informative discussion in order to maintain your self-righteousness. I gave no off topic detours into gender crap, or specifics informing generalities other than using generalities to speak to other posters generalities and the authors generalities and gender attack. The gratuitous advice was for you specifically. I see you didn't take it and chose to obfuscate. You have chosen to argue me. Not a very healthy attitude to bring to communal debate. Not once have you spoken to the article, the gross assumptions put forward by Sullivan or her laying the responsibility for prostitution at the foot of men. Or is Mary Sullivan one of your many nom de plumes? Has feminism so clouded your objectivity that the slightest whiff of masculinity sets you off on a mad course of sly personal attacks?
I hope I have given you sufficient attention and that I can now return my focus to the article under discussion and those who have something to say on subject. Thank you.

Interpol while investigating more than 1000 murders of east European prostitutes throughout the Mid-East were able to trace the ring leader back to a Bulgarian woman who presented herself as an employer for international domestic care. Another such ring was broken in Norway also run by Bulgarians. The suspects, seven men and three women who were Norwegian, Turkish and Bulgarian citizens, were charged with organised pimping.

the following links give a good look at such trade.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L13181613.htm
http://international.ibox.bg/news/id_1278415435

Boy am I glad Debby doesnt do it for free commented and purged the ignorance from the thread.

What it exposes here is the desire for certain groups (lets say feminists or christian groups), to impose their ideologies on other adults and citizens.

WHY?

Why does it always come down to some bunch of morons desiring to restrict the freedom of others and lobbying the government to create laws to do it? That is NOT DEMOCRACY.

Richard Dawkins is right about religion.

Socialisation may explain female dominated sextrade.

Woman socialised to see sex as valuable commodity. Dont give it away. Once, most men had to pay with a marriage contract and indetured servitude to wage slavery. The wage slavery part hasnt changed too much tho.

Women generally dont have to 'pay' for sex. Men are expected to earn it, one way or another. Men have all the power, its a mans world, etc. Men have a strong natural drive to procreate, which can be 'exploited.' Women use their sexual power to redress wider power imbalances (perceived and real) between the sexes.

Sex defines power between the sexes.

Unambiguously 'selling' sex for cheap money devalues it, considerably.

Men dont complain about being 'used' for sex. To give/take something without fair trade is to be 'used.' Its often an emotional exchange they seek, which men withhold, because we too know the value of supply/demand.

Devaluation of sexual power, reduction to mere monetary trade of a couple days wages, is the primary reason that women disagree with prostitution. Rather than humane sisterly considerations. Rhetoric of exploitation and humanity is cover.

Society contrives many pretences for sugar coating the exchange. There's lots of baggage around sex.

The ultimate sex trade is ATTACHMENT. A sort of ownership or claim to another human being and aspects of their existence... because two people copulate. When a baby comes along the parents make a claim on it and on each other. People are strange.

There are physical considerations for mens minority representation. A male has to get it up. And keep it up. Which is prolly impossible to sustain all day, physically. Or mentally, in the midst of the types who tend to use prostitutes. One is passive the other active.

'High class' hookers, who skin phychologically/emotionally vulnerable rich foreigners to the tune of $20k for a week's sex work, hardly strikes me of exploiting females. Its the other way around.

Dear Ms. Sullivan,

Thank you for your thoughtful and deeply considered article posted on Online Opinion on June 25. Clearly your publication with Spinifex Press and Arena Magazine is due to rigorous logic, wealth of experience, and great knowledge in the disciplines of economics and law, on which consideration of the legalisation of prostitution rests. Your recent publications will, without a doubt, further enhance the reputation of excellence that Spinifex and Arena command.

Follows at:

http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette/0706sullivan.html

Saying trafficking of humans is about prostitution is like saying black slavery was about farming.

Dear Steely one :)

we 'Christians' and other 'morons' want to 'impose' our views about pedophiles too.. gee.. shock horror.

I disagree,..that IS democracy, where citizens who have a vote, can vote on issues they feel passionately about.

No matter WHO wins an election, they do so on that basis. WE also have to endure laws produced by others which are not palatable to us.

Your comment 'They just want to impose' blah blah is about the level of 'You hate us' when in fact we just disagree :)

Yvonne.. if we explored your accusation "sanctimoneous crap" logic a bit futher, you might re-think that mate. That kind of statement opens up a Pandoras box on steroids about where it can lead.
*you have been warned* 0_^

Oh.. by the way. .why do you hate us so much ? :)

BOAZ,""I disagree,..that IS democracy, where citizens who have a vote, can vote on issues they feel passionately about.
No matter WHO wins an election, they do so on that basis. "

I'm not going to argue with you about democracy. You either believe in individual liberty, or you do not. Would you support a majority that banned religion altogether? Would your co-believers? I thought not.

"WE also have to endure laws produced by others which are not palatable to us."

Whether they are palatable is not important. What matters is whether it is a majority law affects your individual liberty. For example, laws about gay marriage, would not despite being unpalatable.

Do religious people divorce? Yes. Do religious people commit the sin of adultery? Yes. If they truly believed in those sins, then they would not participate in them. The proper response is not to create a law that makes divorce a criminal offence for everyone else, when they do not share your beliefs.

"Your comment 'They just want to impose' blah blah is about the level of 'You hate us' when in fact we just disagree :)"

That disagreement has consequences for others' individual liberty who do not share your beliefs and don't want others telling them what they can and can't do. I will never advocate depriving you of your freedom to practice religion, so don't do the same to others.

@Steel

With you 100%; democracy is a system of decision making that applies only to common goods. When applied to individual liberties it quickly collapses in to the mob rule of "tyrany of the majority" which great democrats were quite aware of.

Democracy and liberty are two separate subjects. Democracy is not about the business of individual liberty. Social justice is about individual liberty. Democracy allows the right to the individual to vote on whether or not such liberties are just and right for that society. Not all democracies necessarily support all liberties.

I am amazed and disturbed by alot of the comments.

I deserve the same rights as a sex worker as anyone else in any other occupation. I have worked in the sex industry for over 13 years. I was in the top 2% of my state with my year 12 marks, I am currently doing post graduate studies, I have travelled extensively for 10 years, have a morgage, wonderful friends and am happy. I am just like many, many other sex workers both here and around the world.

I have met sex workers in many countries including: Australia, New Zealand, USA, UK, Sweden, Thailand, Canada, France,Malaysia, Hong Kong, China, Germany, Poland, India, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Japan, Spain, many from different parts of Africa and many from different parts of eastern Europe.

If you took the time to actually speak to sex workers and looked at the many sex worker organisation sites on line you would find that our voices ring out loud and clear: consult with us, give us the same rights as other occupations, do not discriminate against us, do not alienate us, decriminalise our work. We are someone's daughter, someone's son, someone's lover, someone's partner, someone's friend, someone's neighbour.

Do not post back and say that I am 'rare' or 'unique'. I am not. I am a typical sex worker. I am a human being and ALL of my clients, over 13yrs, have treated me with much dignity, respect and humanity. Which is more than I can say about these so-called feminists who only want to view me like a walking vagina who has no brain, no options and no soul.

Thank you Debbie and Candi for such good postings and the others who actually want to consider our opinions. The others should get a grip - just remember - any one of us could be standing in line behind you at Coles buying milk. We do not have two heads, we are just regular people living life the way we choose.

Oh Billy, You crack me up. You have been watching a little too much tele. Rather than 'shining example of the lucky few that are able to exercise genuine choice in their lives.' My experience of working alongside more women than I can remember (and no false consciousness has not adled my brain) is I am not that different to most.

As for your assertion that few '“choose” prostitution' if you consider there are about 20,000 sex workers in Oz and that lots of people move in and out of the industry thats a lot of men, women and transgender either current or ex workers. So in fact a lot of people have chosen sex work.

I wouldn't know a whole lot about the 'wonderful relationship between pimps and workers?' because in my 15 years whoring I have never had a pimp - and before you attempt to marginalise my experience by making me the lucky odd example. The Australian sex industry doesn't have a culture of pimps! I wonder why - now that would be an interesting topic.

The fact that there is no recorded case of a sex worker or client transmitting or acquiring HIV through sex work in Australia must make you re-think your portrayal of us as lacking choice or control in our workplaces. So i guess either condoms don't break as much when experts put them on or maybe it has to do with the fact that most clients last [during insertive sex] such a short period of time with a sex worker. Maybe we could just acknowledge that sex workers are skilled professionals.

I agree the readers can read the many posts. Consider what sex workers have said. Read what other speculators have had to say and decide for themselves.

Jesus loved whores.....

Great to see other sex workers having a say on the list. We have been discussed without being heard for too long. Happy Hookin'

This is not the most warped article I have read today however its the more recent one. These feminists needs to get the *#$% down off their misguided soap boxes, stop perpetuating *#$% stigma - maybe go spend a week with some real sex workers in various forms of the industry and get an idea what it's actually like, what the girls actually think and feel about their work.

Sure some girls aren't happy in the industry, some people aren't happy in office work, in Macca's, in Woolworth's, cleaning out septic tanks, digging graves, cleaning public toilets - that doesn't mean all these different occupations need to be eradicated because some people aren't happy working in them - some people are and they should be able to get on with it free of others putting them down and making conclusions about what kind of people they must be. I am all for helping people out of the industry if that is what they want.

I will admit I did not start in the industry for the best of reasons but I came back to it entirely by choice leaving a well paid normal job, to pursue a career as an escort - I have never been as happy. I have a good income, free time to spend on my various hobbies and a caring and understanding partner. I know plenty of other sex workers who are happy with their choice also. Let the happy whores stay and those not happy can pursue other careers.

Thanks Debbie, Mellanie and other sex workers providing some reality to the discussion.

The feminist position on this issue both in regard to the rights of sex workers and their clients should be summed up with one simple statement

My Body, My Choice.

It's not a new idea. Unfortunately some demand freedom for their own bodies while expecting to control what others do with theirs.

R0bert

Robert here is an interesting radio interview.

http://wms2.streamhoster.com/mhrudov/ChioWired965_070307.mp3

A few posters here might just burst an anuerysm if we are lucky.

JamesH, thanks for that link. A very interesting bit of talk radio to accompany my breakfast.

aqvarivs, glad you enjoyed it ;)

JamesH, last night my wife and I listen to your radio talk show interview and when he was talking about splitting things up come a divorce my wife said, "you know you never hear of a man being paid from the proceeds of divorce during the court hearing for doing the lawn, cleaning the gutters, or painting the house, etc.. I wonder why we women can arrive at a price tag for living up to our obligations prior to divorce?" When I told her she did everything to earn her three meals a day. That's when she told me she had married me for my cooking. I've never had any money and she makes about three times my salary. :-) On a serious note though I was quite surprised by the statistics he has for the many advantages the American women has over their men folk. It's going to be an interesting time as more and more of the financial responsibility falls on the woman to keep the home and national economy alive and prospering. Maybe the divorce roles will be reversed and men will have an itemised value ready for the courts to consider. Painting the house. Would that be equal to four or five goes at the lawn? And what about sex? You get paid for that don't ya? All of a sudden divorce court is like Christmas. :-)

Two prostitutes were riding around town with a sign on top of their car which said:
"Two Prostitutes -- $50.00."
A policeman, seeing the sign, stopped them and told them they'd either have to remove the sign or go to jail. Just at that time, another car passed with a sign saying: "JESUS SAVES." One of the girls asked the officer, "How come you don't stop them?!" "Well, that's a little different," the officer smiled "Their sign pertains to religion." So the two ladies of the night frowned as they took their sign down and drove off. The following day found the same police officer in the area when he noticed the two ladies driving around with a large sign on their car again. Figuring he had an easy arrest, he began to catch up with them when he noticed the new sign which now read:
"Two Fallen Angels Seeking Peter -- $50.00."

lol aqvarivs.

Now you had better make a good show of repenting to wholier than thou on these blogs.