I find myself becoming a huge fan of Andrew Leigh's articles. Keep up the good work Andrew. It would be nice if you put an RSS feed here: http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/opinion.htm, so it was easier to follow you.

Leigh wrote: “There are few standard findings in labour economics: wages generally rise over the lifecycle, there is a large pay premium for education, and women generally earn lower wages than men. Yet the world’s oldest occupation satisfies none of these criteria.”

Except for the last criterion the above applies to professional athletes. Most leave the profession at an early age and get no pay premium for education. If one lumps statistics for disparate entities there is absolutely no reason that any component entity should fit the statistics.

Leigh also wrote: “So it is perhaps not surprising that economists have only recently begun to turn their attention to understanding the economics of prostitution, and asking questions such as: why are wages so high? What policies best reduce sexually transmitted diseases? And is legalisation a good idea?”

His first question is partially answered by the last question. An attractive, illegal product comes at a high price. Neither economic theory the author cites to explain high wages of prostitutes makes this obvious connection (Is that a subliminal sexual reference?). One wonders at the competence of the theorists.

Leigh also wrote: “First, some basic facts. According to recent work by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (PDF 924KB), there are around 20,000 prostitutes working in Australia at any given time, suggesting that Australia has around twice as many prostitutes as dentists.”

Interesting juxtaposition. The depravity of filling the wrong cavity.

I favour neither the US or Swedish approach. I see no reason why prostitution should be considered a crime. Where it is a consensual act between adults it is nobody else’s business outside of taking precautions to limit spread of disease.

Why on earth would they consider banning prostitution?

The implication is that its ok to go the pub, get some girl pissed
enough and pay her enough compliments to get a freebie, but give
her a few hundred bucks to go shopping and its a crime! Crazy stuff.

Fact is that as marriage and relationships get bogged down in ever
larger legal squabbles over money, some guys just don't want all the
hassles that go with a relationship.

Plenty of married men are also seeking a bit of fun on the side,
as some wives misuse their control of sex as a weapon.

So its a market driven industry, great for some, not for others,
its all about choice these days.

Interesting essay but very skewed to the 'consumer' POV.

Assuming the perspective of the sex worker, the questions I would also ask are:

1. Are brothel/escort sex-workers paid per shift or per client? That is, if they are on call for an 8-hour shift, do they only get paid for client time or the full shift?

2. How much of the 'high' wages charged for brothel and escort services actually goes to the sex worker?

3. What is the standard of working conditions experienced by brothel workers in terms of hours, shift times, breaks, workplace safety, and medical and physical security?

4. How much fee disparity is there between brothel/escort wages in the legal and non-legal Australian states? That is, does legalisation bring the price down?

David f.

'The depravity of filling the wrong cavity.'

Many sex workers (male and female) actually take pride in their work. They deserve a bit more respect than being reduced to 'holes'. Or do you perceive sexuality in general - especially the female kind - as just a cavity to be filled?

Woman was created for mans pleasure. Woman who do not work give more pleasure than those that do.
If a female has a little to flog off so what.
You could ban it as much as ya like, but would it stop.
It would have to be a female to come up with something like this.

SJF:

1. Brothel/escort workers are paid per client, not per hour.

Note that brothel prostitutes are contractors, not employees.

2. Around 2/3 officially, but most workers collect substantial tips.

3. Highly variable. Some brothels are very supportive of workers, while others are exploitative. That's why greater regulation is needed.

Each state has sex worker safety/education organisations, but they vary in effectiveness and access to brothels. Dodgy brothels can be quite hostile to outsiders inspecting their affairs.

4. I don't believe so. Women generally won't do sex work for little pay, and why would they?

Crude as it is, rates are more dependant on the sex appeal of the worker than on industry status.

"So it is perhaps not surprising that economists have only recently begun to turn their attention to understanding the economics of prostitution, and asking questions such as: why are wages so high?"
High is a relative term. High in respect to what? School teachers? Members of Parliament? Members of the police force? High school cleaners? Given that prostitution is legal then the rate is that which satisfies clients and prostitutes. End of story.

.
<Why are prostitutes paid such high wages?>
Because men are silly enough to pay it, the reason being that they have a big SEX blog, taking up this huge space in their brain and so they can’t think very well, it’s a sad handicap really.

If men think they can sneak away to brothels and it will have no effect on their marriages I think they are kidding themselves. If there is not enough intimacy in a marriage there is something wrong with the relationship anyway and having sex elsewhere will only make that distance greater. On some level the other partner always senses the detachment when sex is being had elsewhere.

Since brothels have been legalized and all these call girls are allowed to freely advertise in the paper women have developed even more insecurity when it comes to their trust in men, so now they won’t commit to relationships or family life either. After all it has been ENSHRINED IN LAW that these sexy women have legal permission to sleep with any woman’s husband. If the men in this country sense that they are losing control of their women they would be right on the mark.

Lead by example fellows or the women today will just think what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Poor didums maybe somebody will open a prostitute discount shop.

SANCHO:<rates are more dependant on the SEX appeal of the worker>

I just thought of something amusing.

Maybe the high charges are because of the lack of sex appeal of the men. Sort of an ugly compensation fee

Sharkfin, thanks for a good laugh!-
"Maybe the high charges are because of the lack of sex appeal of the men. Sort of an ugly compensation fee."

I am of the opinion that if a adult woman (or man) is willing to provide sex for a fee, and a man/woman is willing to pay them for the sex, then that is their business.

I still find the whole business a little sad though.

This article refers to "the Swedish model of banning prostitution but only arresting clients". Sweden does not ban prostitution. The purchase of sexual services is criminalised in certain circumstances. In this area, the law rests on an understanding of prostitution as a form of violence against women and children. Hence to say, as the article says, that "there is little evidence that banning prostitution reduces violence towards women" fails to comprehend the whole basis of the law in Sweden: prostitution of women and children IS itself a form of violence. The article in contrast rests on the assumption that prostitution is something that women do and that is essentially benign. Hence, the question at issue goes a lot deeper than the author seems to understand.
Helen Pringle

There is an old joke: What is the difference between a prostitute and a lawyer: There is none, they both screw people for money.

Since time immemorial powerful men have taken advantage of women who have a need that cannot be satisfied in any other way than by selling their bodies. The lineage of Jesus Christ is traced back to a woman who pretended she was a prostitute in order to become pregnant. This was a woman called Tamar, and after Er and Onan were killed by the Lord, in desperation she acted as a prostitute, and Judah had sex with her for the price of a kid. Since Judah did not have a kid with him, he gave her a pledge, his signet, bracelets and his staff. When Judah sent the kid, by a friend, he could not find Tamar because she had put her widows garments back on, but she was pregnant. Soon as happens she started to show signs of a baby.

Judah recognized his own signet and staff, and admitted paternity and two boys were born, one was Zerah and the other was Farah the distant ancestor of Jesus Christ. How many women have fed their children by prostitution. No one will ever know. However selling sex is not the only form of prostitution rampant in our society. Selling a persons soul for thirty pieces of silver, as Judas did is another form.

One of the lowest forms of life on this planet would have to be a Judge. A Judge presumes to take the place of Almighty God and act as the final arbiter of life and death, or long term imprisonment and this is an abomination of the law that only a person lower than a prostitute could in all conscience do.

John Grisham’s fact story, An Innocent Man, set in Oklahoma, where the Police framed a sufferer from Bipolar for murder, is evidence that at least in parts of the United States the principles of the Magna Carta are still in force. That not how it is here but should be.

Why did there have to be an asterisk in place of the 'e' in sex?

Sex, sex, sex, sex.

We are all here as a result of it. Why the prudish title?

Sex workers, female and male both receive the same rates - and yes, the rates should be expensive. Prostitution is the only work among the 'caring careers' (nursing, aged-care workers etc) that receives the kind of income that is fair reward for the work done. Although only in well-run non-exploitative type brothels. Street work, although it provides independence for the worker, is very dangerous. Escort work requires a really good 'minder' who is not a pimp, and pays the best rates - again deservedly so. As with athletes, the 'career' only has a short viability.

Very poor analogy with dentists. Also author focusses on female prostitutes, never mentions male workers. True, male workers mostly service male clients, however, there is a small but significant proportion of female clients.

Finally, I am left wondering what was the point of this article? That sex-work pays well but only for a short time? Well, duh?!

If the author had desired to deal with a real issue, he could've discussed the illegal trade in young women and boys from poor nations who are used and abused. Now there's a problem that needs solving.

How about an article on societal inequities that results in people's bodies being bought and sold like cattle?

Gees Andrew, this is a very disappointing article; especially from a lawyer. (You would be torn to shreds in a court room).

I am confused by the point of the article. The article seriously undervalues the subject and the implications to persons and to our society that prostitution brings with it.

Prostitution is an abuse to the person of woman and to the collective of women in our society and I believe should never be defended or appear to be defended, (something your shallow article achieves).

Sorry Andrew, try again.

One under God
Better to defend the moral argument against prostitution I think, from the point of view of Christian defence of society and soul; not as you did by aligning Christ with prostitutes.

Goldman bankers behaving badly #2 … “A millionaire banker offered an escort girl £500,000 to leave her pensioner husband, a court has heard. Yann Samuelides, 35, a managing director of Goldman Sachs, became so infatuated with the Slovakian escort girl that he wanted to make her his wife. And being a money man, he calculated that 28-year-old Alzbeta Holmokova was worth £500,000 … Denis Morley, a 67-year-old retired businessman, told the court the banker had showered his young wife with gifts after becoming her client. He had even rented a luxurious flat for her before offering his £500,000 marriage proposal, he said. 'He bribed her to leave me,' he said … Holmokova filed for divorce from her husband in February this year, citing his unreasonable behaviour. She is understood not to have asked for any financial settlement. Morley, who is contesting the divorce petition, has allegedly admitted once threatening to kill Samuelides … Morley, from Coventry, married Miss Holmokova in 2002 at Coventry Registry Office when she was 21 … Samuelides was appointed a managing director at Goldman Sachs, one of the world's oldest and largest investment banking firms, in December 2007 … A spokesman for the firm last night refused to comment on the divorce case.” (Daily Mail, London, September 8)

The author doesn't say how he defines prostitution, and in particular how he distinguishes prostitution from heterosexual relations in which the woman agrees to provide a sexual service or favour for a valuable consideration from the man. Put in this way, we see that the woman requiring some kind of valuable consideration is a very common aspect of heterosexuality in general.

For example, the existence of prostitution shows that, circumstances permitting, many if not most men are ready to have casual sexual encounters with young women on only seconds' acquaintance, which we all know anyway. But I once read a study that said that (ie in the absence of sufficient cash payment), heterosexual couples on first intercourse took 12 to 16 prior meetings and spoke 1,000,000 words. That is obviously to satisfy the women's pre-requisites, and can be thought of as valuable non-cash consideration from the man.

It's like that story about Winston Churchill and Lady Astor:
C: "Lady Astor, would you have sex with me if I gave you a million pounds?"
A: "Why Sir Winston I believe I would."
C: "Well would you have sex with me if I gave you one pound?"
A: "Oh! Sir Winston! What kind of woman do you think I am?"
C: "We've already established that, what we're haggling over now is the price."

In marriage, the time and money are at large and the woman participates in the man's income and equity, while in brothel prostitution, both the time and money are limited.

It would be interesting to compare the per-sex act monetary return to the woman in marriage over the life of the marriage, with that in prostitution. Maybe then we will learn why prostitutes are called 'cheap' even when their wages are ten times those of other women generally.

All the arguments about the supposed "violence" of consensual relations in prostitution assume that the protagonist knows what's better for people, than people. The arguments apply equally to any kind of employment. Mine certainly feels like slavery, perhaps it could be banned too.

Times have changed and the career of a prostitute is probably longer than that of many workers.

Because they are contractors and private entrepreneurs, it is worth comparing apples with apples and in that case one would be forced to admit that prostitutes have considerable advantage over small business or private entrepreneurs, where failure of the business is highly likely and the monetary loss can be crippling. The $ investment by a prostitute is low and her success rate is high. The cost of maintaining assets is low. Government regulation is simple and easily complied with. The prostitute will do better with a more comply body, better communication and sex skills, but few are disqualified by not meeting some or all of those criteria.

The income of prostitutes depends on limited supply, which in turn depends on Victorian sexual attitudes in the community. The sexual wowserism of churches and feminists (although the feminists focus only on hetersexuality) is actually good for the business of prostitution, through artificially limiting supply. Guilt and restrictions are big business.

It is reasonable to expect continued growth in the demand from women for escort services. Women's overseas sex tours are in demand.

More liberal attitudes to sex, or at least the freedom to discuss it more openly, can only reduce the incidence of prostitution although there will always be a demand. Best of all, more openness about sex and legalising of sex workers limit the involvement of organised crime.

Peter Hume

A digression from the discussion ... But what always intrigues me about those alleged exchanges between Winston Churchill and Lady Astor is that, although Lady Astor was a quick-thinking and renowned wit, it's Churchill who is always given the upper hand.

I'd say that these undocumented exchanges were a system of anecdotes invented for the cultural purpose of trivialising the political contribution of Westminster's first ever female MP - to alleviate the very well-documented femophobic fears of the British male establishment.

Cornflower

'The sexual wowserism of churches and feminists (although the feminists focus only on hetersexuality)...'

We can always rely on you to peddle all the usual myths about feminism. Feminist attitudes to prostitution focus on pragmatic issues of safety and exploitation and cultural issues of gender power. The sexual morality of prostitution may be an issue for some feminists - as it is for many in the non-feminist population. However, feminism has no official or unofficial policy on the subject.

For anyone interested in following up on the general feminist view on prostitution, especially sex worker safety, this one from Hoyden About Town is quite comprehensive.

http://hoydenabouttown.com/20080407.1544/prostitution-regulation-exploitation-and-death/

"I'd say that these undocumented exchanges were a system of anecdotes invented for the cultural purpose of trivialising the political contribution of Westminster's first ever female MP - to alleviate the very well-documented femophobic fears of the British male establishment. "

That's one possibility. The other possibility is simply that Lady Astor wasn't as quick-witted as Winston Churchill.

The feminist response to prostitution may be categorised in two classes. Libertarian feminism takes the view that a woman's consensual sex life is no-one's business but her own, and rejects the claim of others including the state to use force - the law - to impose any different standard of decision-making. Paternalistic feminism purports to decide on behalf of the woman what values she should hold and act on.

The problems with declaring consensual acts to be a violation of the person consenting should be obvious.

One is that people notoriously hold strong opinions about sex. The Christians in particular think it's the worst thing in the world and have historically loaded it with as many proscriptions as they possibly can. They hold that the model of sexuality is monogamous marriage of heterosexual virgins who live and die faithful. Everything else is supposedly a distortion of human sexuality. Though as a theory, this is a very poor description of the real world, the Christians assert divine sanction for their inaccurate opinions. This view of human sexuality has been enormously influential in the western world owing to the enormous influence of Christianity. Underlying much of the negative attitude towards prostitution is this Christian horror of sexuality, which they have imposed by force over many centuries.

All employments require the use of the employee's body to perform the service. It is simply nonsense to suggest that employment in general is "violence" against the employee for this reason. Similarly with prostitution. Rape is already illegal; and no-one is suggesting otherwise. Those alleging that prostitution should be banned as being "violence" are merely trying to smuggle their own anti-sex attitudes into the debate without having to offer any rational defence of their own intolerant meddling.

Peter Hume

Here are a couple points to consider:

If the argument of women prostituting themselves can be viewed in terms of “depravity verses morality”.

Then:

Is morality socially desirable? Is depravity socially desireable?

So then:

Against what fixed criteria do we base the argument of morality?

And:

Into what other social issues do we extend the argument of morality?

diver dan, nobody's claiming morality is fixed. It's a tough concept that is examined regularly.

However, our society does its best to lay a moral framework down, based upon the best outcomes for society.

Essentially, we look at whether certain acts have the potential to harm others. It is far from simple, but it's an accommodation that allows people of different faiths to live together without oppressing one another.

It's the only suitable arrangement for a modern society. That's why I find this rubbish about moral slippery slopes that allegedly ensue without a religious framework so damn disingenuous.

Society has never been a sinless utopia and the modern era of reduced religious influence is far more civilised for far more people than at any previous point in history.

So don't try this rubbish about attempting to pin down specific morality. It's a common debating tool, but it's intellectually weak. By the same token, I could go through the bible verse by verse and demand you justify each and every heinous act, and explain point-by-point, whether or not obscure ill-defined acts are permitted under Christian dogma.

To reinforce my point, I give you - Pope Alexander VI:

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

"But it was not long before his passion for endowing his relatives at the church's and his neighbours' expense became manifest. Alexander VI had four children by his mistress (Vannozza dei Cattani), three sons and a daughter."

If well paid 'mistresses' are good enough for popes, I'm somewhat bemused that such a puritan attitude can still exist today.

Diver Dan

If we start with the facts, before getting into “depravity versus morality”, the commonest pattern of human sexual behaviour is where a woman agrees to sex with a man in consideration of something valuable from him including property and services. This includes prostitution, marriage, concubinage, mistresses, and girlfriends.

The next most common pattern of sexual behaviour is *a series* of *almost* exclusive heterosexual relationships. Even among those religions that believe in heterosexual monogamy, such as the Christians, in fact the vast majority do not comply with their own precepts. Only a small minority marry as virgins and remain faithful til death. The rest have a series of relationships, and many have a ‘bit on the side’ from time to time.

Even among the holy orders of the celibate priesthood, masturbating into one’s cassock, or sodomising the altar-boy, are not unknown neither.

The issue of policy is always whether the state should use its legal monopoly of force and threats to enforce a particular type of behaviour.

When it comes to ‘depravity versus morality’, the first problem is that even the people who agree that prostitution is depraved, do not themselves practise what they preach. But even if they did, there is still no reason why they should be able to force other people into complying with their sexual opinions. And even if they did, there is the problem of distinguishing the material rewards that women get in prostitution, from the material rewards they get in other forms of heterosexual behaviour.

So even if there were general agreement that prostitution is morally bad, that still wouldn’t provide a justification for using police to enforce the majority opinion; any more than majority opinion would justify feeding Christians to the lions for public entertainment.

As for policy to regulate prostitutes’ sexual health, did any sex worker ever ask Andrew Leigh or SJF to police her sexual health? Perhaps instead we should be idly dreaming up ways to police and inspect the sexual health of Andrew Leigh or SJF

PH and TRTL

So essentially you allude to the substitution of “desirable with acceptable”.

Is morality socially acceptable? Yes.

Is depravity socially acceptable? Yes.

Against what fixed criteria do we base the argument of morality?

Essentially you argue, morality has no fixed parameters.

Therefore;

Morality is unusable as grounds for debate on prostitution.

Interestingly, that is the position of the law. At the least in NSW.

So finally the question;

“In what other social issues do we extend the argument of morality”?

diver dan: "Therefore; Morality is unusable as grounds for debate on prostitution."

Impressive diver. Unlike others that argue from the point of view you seem to be taking, you do seem to have a very firm grasp of logic and seem perfectly willing to yield it.

The essential difference between the two view points is that some (like you, it appears - sorry if I put words in your mouth) believe there is some universal morality which we would all ascribe to if we could see it, whereas others like myself, TRTL and perhaps PH don't believe universal morality is a useful concept. Certainly no one agrees on what it is. Some people such as religious nut cases say they know what it is, but unfortunately if you scratch hard enough you find out they all think it is a different thing.

If you take your view point that morality is universal, then it would make sense to try and base our law upon it. But if it isn't, then what do you do? It seems to me we try come up with some consensus morality, which codify and call the law. Democracy happens to be the best mechanism we have discovered so far to do that. The law can not by definition match anyone's personal moral code as they are all different, thus we all at times believe the law is an ass.

You see the irony in this? You argue the law should be based on morals, and I say it already is. So when you ask “In what other social issues do we extend the argument of morality?”, and I answer the law is already based on it, and the rule of law is ultimately how we decide on most social issues here in Oz.

'Some people such as religious nut cases say they know what it is,'

Some however like the irreligious nut cases think it is moral to kill unborn babies. That is the morality you come to when you allow man to think he is a god and decide in what is right and wrong.

runner, until you learn to accept that not everyone accepts 'unborn babies' as a label for foetuses, and you learn to apply logic and some degree of understanding for other points of view, you'll only ever succeed in persuading people who are already as convinced as you are, and you'll alienate anyone who doesn't share your extreme realms of hostility for other views.

diver dan, you didn't really grasp my point. My point was that a) modern society is far more civilised than it's been at any stage in history and b) modern society is based on a secular framework and c) that any form of government that bases itself on an absolute moral framework that isn't a consensus is doomed to alienate those who are not of the dominant dogma.

Thus, as rstuart points out, we have the alternative, which is what we employ currently. Democracy. Quite a handy thing, when it works reasonably well. Keeps the shrill antagonists (see above) on the edges where they can exercise their right to be heard, but not oppress.

TRTL you argue

'runner, until you learn to accept that not everyone accepts 'unborn babies' as a label for foetuses'

well not everyone accepts that Paedophile is gross child abuse either. It does change the plain fact that it is.

runner: "That is the morality you come to when you allow man to think he is a god and decide in what is right and wrong."

Thanks for that runner. It provides the perfect example for the point I was trying to make. People who believe in God, even your God, are allowed to think that abortion is OK. Or at least they do believe it is OK, so I presume they are allowed to. I am not sure who does the "allowing" - the sect they subscribe to? I guess you would know more about than me.

Anyway regardless of who does the allowing the views of the religious compass the full spectrum of possibilities, just as the views of we secularists do. And that was my point above. These supposed "universal morals" are for all intents and purposes impossible for we mere morals to divine using any logically rigorous method, which makes them useless as a basis for law. For the attitudes on various religious to abortion see this:

http://atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/Religions.htm

You of course will claim all those other religious nutters are wrong, and your version is right. I do hope God knows how to figure out which of you is telling the universal truth, because the rest of sure as hell don't.

Peter Hume

‘The other possibility is simply that Lady Astor wasn't as quick-witted as Winston Churchill.’

Oh … Silly me! So that’s why a series of undocumented anecdotes, that no one can find a source for, in which the same man always puts the same woman in her place, which are told regularly by men, and which all reinforce an historical set of negative stereotypes about women … must all indeed be true.

‘… the commonest pattern of human sexual behaviour is where a woman agrees to sex with a man in consideration of something valuable from him including property and services…’

Oh … Silly me again!. And here’s me thinking that a woman’s 'common pattern' of sexual behavior is to actively desire sex and decide to have it because it gives her pleasure. I keep forgetting that in the mind of men like yourself, a woman’s sexuality does not belong to her, but rather to the nearest man who barters for exclusive rights to her body.

‘... did any sex worker ever ask Andrew Leigh or SJF to police her sexual health?’

I would assume that when the Scarlet Alliance – i.e. the sex workers union of Australia – claims that it is ‘…the leader in advocating for the health, safety and welfare of workers in Australia’s sex industry’, maybe sexual health is high on their list of priorities. And when they also say that their aim is for ‘sex workers to be self-determining agents’ that they prefer to do their own policing.

http://www.scarletalliance.org.au/who/

‘Perhaps instead we should be idly dreaming up ways to police and inspect the sexual health of Andrew Leigh or SJF.’

I'm sure that oversteps OLO decency guidelines. I won't take it any further or demand an apology. However, if you make another sordid quip like that about my personal sexuality or the personal sexuality of anyone here, a formal complaint is going straight to the editor.

SJF
Your arguments consist of misrepresentation, personality, mind-reading, projection, evasion: a veritable welter of fallacies.

‘The other possibility is simply that Lady Astor wasn't as quick-witted as Winston Churchill.’

Oh … Silly me! So that’s why a series of undocumented anecdotes… must all indeed be true.

No, that’s why I cited both possibilities and you are misrepresenting that I concluded only one “must” be true.

‘… the commonest pattern of human sexual behaviour is where a woman agrees to sex with a man in consideration of something valuable from him including property and services…’

‘Oh … Silly me again!. And here’s me thinking that a woman’s 'common pattern' of sexual behavior is to actively desire sex and decide to have it because it gives her pleasure.’

A woman enjoying sex is not inconsistent with her requiring, and obtaining, valuable consideration for it. You do not deny that the commonest pattern of heterosexuality is as I have said it is. Nor is what you have said inconsistent with what I said.

‘I keep forgetting that in the mind of men like yourself, a woman’s sexuality does not belong to her, but rather to the nearest man who barters for exclusive rights to her body.’

Mind-reading, personality, projection, and a non-sequitur: four fallacies in one sentence – not bad – do they teach you to argue like that in gender studies?

Even if and when a woman requires some form of valuable consideration for sex, that does not have the result that her sexuality belongs to the man she agrees to have sex with. If we put aside your confusion and bitchiness, there is nothing of your argument left – fool.

‘... did any sex worker ever ask Andrew Leigh or SJF to police her sexual health?’

Nothing you have said shows that any sex worker did ask you to police her sexual health, so the honest answer is “no”, and you then attempt to evade the question by appeal to absent authority.

Even if sex workers have asked the Scarlet Alliance to agitate for the policing of their sexual activity, so what? That will not give them any right to seek to police those who have not.

‘Perhaps instead we should be idly dreaming up ways to police and inspect the sexual health of Andrew Leigh or SJF.’

So it’s okay for you to dream up ways to police others’ sexuality against their will, but an outrageous offence when someone suggests what you’re doing to others, might also apply to you.

You have been thrashed and humiliated, and now you want to go crying to Daddy – in a non-patriarchal way of course.

Diver Dan

“So essentially you allude to the substitution of “desirable with acceptable”.”

I’m not saying that what is acceptable is desirable, if that’s what you mean. Different people have different opinions on both.

My point is only that, just because you think something is immoral, doesn’t mean:
a) everyone else agrees with you
b) everyone else should agree with you, nor
c) you should be able to use violence or threats to force other people to comply with your opinions.

“Essentially you argue, morality has no fixed parameters.”

Only in the sense that different people have different morals.

I am not saying that we should not use morality to enforce policy or law. I believe that the only morality that should be used as a basis of law or policy, is to stop A from aggressing against B. If prostitution was a case of A using violence or threats against B, I would be in favour of illegalizing it. But not just because people don’t like it, or think it immoral, or presume to tell others what values to live by.

“In what other social issues do we extend the argument of morality”?

We should ban the use of force or threats to agress against the person or property of others in all cases whatsoever, including by governments and officious meddlers – that’s the point!

Peter Hume

Your long-winded response to my post is so fixated on my supposed capacity for mind-reading, I'll just consult my crystal ball instead of bothering to address your labrynthine thought processes.

However, this howler deserves some less mystical attention:

'So it’s okay for you to dream up ways to police others’ sexuality against their will...'

Excuse me?? Where on earth in any of my posts did I advocate policing people's sexuality against their will? My comments on the sex-work trade has been entirely about acknowledging and respecting it as a profession.

And this one ...

'You have been thrashed and humiliated ...'

I have?? You'd think I would have noticed. To make one of your own cheap shots ... Haven't you chosen a rather revealing word choice for a discussion about prostitution?

The men on this forum who defend using prostitution for a bit on the side and say that it is not immoral should have no objections then, if their wife or girlfriend accompanies them over to the bothel and does a bit of part-time work to earn a bit on the side, while they are waiting for them.

If they can't agree to this then all their arguments about their openmindedness about prostitution is bullcrap.

"women generally earn lower wages than men"
This is not true.

After adjusting for the fact that few women work in the dirty, dangerous and low-status fields (such as farm labourer, construction, miner, taxi driver, garbo, security, offshore oil drilling, (and suprisingly) cleaner)...

And adjusting for the hours of working experience...

Women earn MORE than men.

Have a look around at 3am one morning... you see pub bouncers, security, taxi drivers, truckies, road workers, coppers, garbos, and prostitutes. All of these are almost entirely MEN, (except most prostitutes). One intrepretation is that they are all 'prostitutes', forced to sacrifice themselves for money... to support their families, or drug habits...

And most are men.

The main reasons that women ON AVERAGE earn less than men are:

1: Men work longer than women. Of all people who work more than 50 hrs per week, 90% are men.

2: Dirty, dangerous and low status jobs need to offer better pay to get anybody to do them. These are only done by men

3: young women (under 30) earn MORE than men... but once they becoem parents, dads work LONGER, while mothers demand a wonderfull 'work-life balance', or never do paid work again.

4: Consequently during the crucial 'career development years (30-40) few women work at all. You need to do Long years of long hours to get to be a top income earner.

5: It only takes a very few, very highly paid, special individuals to push up the 'average male income'.

ONE single man, earnign a million dollars per year noticibly increases "average male wages". These men are exceptions, they are outliers, and should be ignored in calculating an average, or at more meaningfull "average" should be used, such as "Median" which means "Typical". "average" wage is well above the 'typical' male wage.

PartTimeParent@pobox.com

"The men on this forum who defend using prostitution... if their wife or girlfriend accompanies them over to the bothel and does a bit of part-time work to earn a bit on the side, while they are waiting for them. "
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9416#151198

Rubbish!
Throughout human evolutionaty history, men who have a 'bit on the side' do little harm to their families. IF there was a pregnancy, it didn't hurt his wife or their children... it was the responsibility of the 'loose woman' and her duped husband.

But if a wife betrays her family, she brings home a pregnancy. THis poor child is doomed to never live with it's NATURAL FATHER, and the husband is expoited in the most horrendus way, Not only does he pay for som other bloke's kid... but he is duped into loving this other child, believeing it is his.

In tis time of divorce, it has bever been more clear that the greatest love of all is a parent's love of their child.

Since the greatest love of all is a parent's love of their child, this is the ultimate betrayal

Hume: <"I once read a study that said that (ie in the absence of sufficient cash payment), heterosexual couples on first intercourse took 12 to 16 prior meetings and spoke 1,000,000 words. That is obviously to satisfy the women's pre-requisites, and can be thought of as valuable non-cash consideration from the man.">

Why wouldn't meeting 12-16 times and speaking a million words also be considered a "valuable non-cash consideration" for a woman? Are you saying that men don't get anything out of those exchanges (other than the expectation that there'll be a bonk at the end). You seem to be of the opinion that most men are very shallow - are they?

Also, your benevolent approval of the prostitution biz rings hollow when you clearly delight in the Churchill/Lady Astor anecdote. The punch line: 'We've already established what sort of woman you are; now all we're haggling over is the price.'

"... WHAT SORT OF WOMAN YOU ARE..." <- your slip is showing.

In any case, I am less interested in whether or not people choose, from a viable range of options, to be prostitutes than whether the opportunities exist for them to get out of it.

partTimeParent:

A couple of additional thoughts on the matters you raise.

1. Women work shifts too in unglamorous jobs - both paid and unpaid. For example: nurses; some factory workers; cleaners; waitresses and bar staff; some female security workers, coppers, taxi drivers and ambulance workers; shelf fillers; workers for telephone call centres and 24 hour counselling operators; residential and hospital workers such as cooks and laundry staff. Unpaid: carers of aged and disabled people; mothers of little children; homemakers - whose hours can be considered to be from 7.30 am or so to 9.00 pm at night when the last dish is wiped and put away; the lunches cut and clothes laid out for school kids and those in the household going to paid work.

2. Not all work that matters attracts a wage and it's the performance of those many, many unpaid jobs that makes it possible for other people to focus on going to paid work. If only men do the lowly and
difficult jobs, as you claim, then we would expect to see many more of them wiping the butts of children and adults alike; washing associated linens; helping people shower, dress, eat and attend to any other personal needs - all of which is not light work; cleaning house and all the other drudgery that makes a home a home.

Btw: I am not a homemaker myself - I am the family financial support and have been for many years. The difference between you and me, it seems, is that I am fully appreciative of the many tasks my spouse undertakes that makes it possible for me to focus on career and return to a relaxing and pleasant home. I earn the money but I don't consider it 'mine' because his efforts mean that he is working for it too.

PynchMe
Firstly Good on you to carry the bread-winning burden that mostly men do, and to accept it without complaint like men (generally) do.

You have missed the changes in our socety over the last 30 years... Ting up the LHMEU (the union that looks after cleaners etc... most are now men... the lowest of the low infact, migrant men.

I can't remember when I last saw a female taxi driver. The only female working in construction is the recent fashion to get women to hold the lolly-pop stop/slow signs. I do vaguely know one female in security.

Call centres are about 60% female, but that is at least clean, comfortable airconditioned and safe. Not like the really lowly jobs I mentioned. 98% of people killed at work are men.

But every "lowly" job you mentioned that women do, are actually men's jobs. With very very few women in them. The worst jobs are reserved for men... like the 'n!ggers' in 1950's America, today's 'n!gger' is simply a man.

98% of people killed at work are men

partTimeParent;

If men feel victimized, then perhaps they are - by other men. Whatever the burden in lower paid; more dangerous or unpleasant jobs - it's also men who hold the vast majority of power positions that control the economy and the polity.

- but you seem to miss my main point. Whatever paltry wages men are paid, there is a whole working class (mainly women) who get no pay nor recognition at all. Those are the people as I said who support others to go to work and who do the bulk of the work caring for children, the elderly and the infirm.

pynchme:"If men feel victimized,"

Men don't feel victimised except in a narrow band of activities, we're just very aware that women aren't victimised either, depite the best efforts of the weak-minded and entitlement-junkies to pretend otherwise.

As you plainly don't like men, you and your grrrlfriend should simply pretend we don't exist. Shop in "grrrls only" stores, buy only food grown by grrls, make sure your toilet is drained by a sewer constructed and maintained only by grrrls, running to a sewerage treatment plant run by grrrls. You'd best make sure you only allow your garbage to be collected by a truck driven by a womyn and taken to a dump staffed by womyn.

While you're out and about, make sure you only fill your car (naturally, you'll have one exclusively womyn-manufactured) with fuel refined at a plant run by womyn from oil that was pumped out of the ground by womyn on a rig that was made by womyn from steel that was refined by womyn. No doubt you'll take it to an all-girl carwash when it needs cleaning.

Good luck.

Oh g'day Antiseptic. I take it you're bored and looking for an argument as a bit of entertainment. I won't be able to respond quickly; but I'll respond when I can.

You already know that I am an ordinary heterosexual; long term married woman with three young adult children that include a son who is a soldier.

So without going off on one of your loopy side steps, please explain how you deduce that I have a "grrlfriend" (do you mean lesbian?) and "hate men".

PynchMe;
TWO POINTS
1: "If men feel victimized, then perhaps they are - by other men."
Yes, of course, but does that make discrimination any better?
This is the point that feminists (like you) don't get... because feminism is now a hatred cult.

Do I have to hate unions because I hate inflation? Do I have to hate china because I lost my manufacturing job?

Feminists like to point out that at the top of the heirarchy are men... but forget that at the bottom are also men... Feminists like to point out that women at Uni were rare until the 1960's but forget the millions of men ordered to their deaths (yes by other men) in the two world wars.

Feminism claims the power of victimhood for all women, but forgets that the bottom of the heap according to every quantifiable, measurable measure, are men.

For starters,
- men live shorter (due to suicide, preventable illness, susbstance abuse, neglect, dangerous work - an 80 year old man has an equal life expectancy as an 80 year old woman... men's AVERAGE shorter lives are due to PREVENTABLE causes),
- Young Men earn LESS than women (and in every age group women earn MORE than men, after adjusting for work experience, qualifications, and industry (You have to pay extra to get anybody to work late at night, in dirty dangerous or yucky jobs)

Men suicide at 4 times the rate as women (Officialy, unofficially after adjusting for the 'probable suicides' that are recorded as drug OD's, car "accidents", and shooting "accidents".

Boys are systematically discriminated against at school, so that boy's have dropped from matching girls results to being 20% lower. Now two thirds of Uni students are girls. It's clever discrimination, boys don't enjoy "talking", they enjoy "doing", so school activities are all about "talking". Boys are bored and then diagnosed as ADHD... 80% of ADHD are boys.

2: "(woomen) who support others...caring for children (get lower wages).

Yeah, the dreaded "Work-life balance" Terrible!

PartTimeParent@pobox.com

Hi partTimeParent.

1. Feminists don't claim victimhood for all women. Apart from anything else, there is no conglomerate feminist view. Feminism embraces many different streams of thought.

I agree with you - males die at a faster rate than females in every age group; though their life expectancy is catching up. That is, things are improving for them - why then would you want things to change?

As to suicide rates - females attempt more but men complete the act more often. The reasons include that men use more decisive means - like a gun instead of an overdose.

However, I think the problem is bigger than that. Men are not socialized to ask for help or to admit when they feel vulnerable or are struggling. They just feel like failures when they can't cope.
Quite a few feminists are interested in that aspect of sex role socialization and oppose socio-cultural conditioning that applauds risk taking behaviour and the devaluing of lives whether male or female.

As you say, men are clustered at the top of the power hierarchy. It's therefore not in the hands of the female sex to dictate how the economy works or who goes to war and so on. How is it that you reserve your angst for women (esp feminists) - but not for the men who exploit others to maintain their own social power?

2. I wasn't talking about work-life balance - though that's another interesting aspect I hadn't considered. I am talking about unpaid labour - 24 hours a day 7 days a week looking after the ones who go to work; their offsrping and everyone's aged, ill or disabled relatives. For NO pay; recognition nor gratitude. I think whoever does that is at the bottom of society's power structure.

- and further to your post partTimeParent,

I am in total agreement that the ADHD/ medication fad is a disgrace and harmful to children.

However, who does the diagnosing, writes the scripts and collects millions of dollars in profits?

Again, I see it as exploitation by vested interests. If people who diagnose and prescribe were doing their jobs ethically and people who own, manage or invest in multinational pharmaceutical companies had a modicum of conscience, the over medication of children, especially boys, wouldn't be occurring.

What can we do to stop it?

Pychme, just because some men exploit other men, doesn't mean that men don't deserve support or funding. The feminist line is because men are at the top, thus no men (even those at the bottom) don't need any help.

The point is very clear, men are at the top, AND at the bottom. While women are protected and safe (if a little bored) in the middle.

Every quantifiable statistic of female 'disadvantage' actually shows that men are the MOST disadvantaged, because at the bottom are men. (*Except sexual abuse, although again, men who rale are jailed where they are likely to be raped anally many times... an eye for both eyes)

But if you compare powerful men to average women, you'll see anti-female discrimination... But this is comparing apples with pears.

You are blaming the victim, if you claim that men don't ask for help thus they deserve everythin they get. Is not men's fault they are NOT ALLOWED to ask for help, nor given funding to raise awareness about their plight. Men don't get prostrate checks as much as women for brest cancer, mostly because millions of millions of funding is provided to tell women that they must check, they must look after themselves. Men are ignored

No partTimeParent, not blaming the victim. Men haven't traditionally asked for help (though the situation is changing for the better I think) for many reasons that spring from being socialized to ignore or hide their emotional pain and distress.

For example, sayings like, "crying like a sissy"; "getting his knickers in a knot"; "stop being such a girl" - and so many similar sayings, tell boys that showing emotional distress is a female behaviour that is undesirable and a sign of weakness.

Many men have relied on women to monitor their health; make their appointments and urge them to see doctors etc. Maybe this is part of the reason that being married confers some protection against early mortality - in any case their needs have not been ignored, except by other men.

For example, mainstream health - care; research and expenditure has been geared by default towards men's needs - eg: heart health; cardio vascular disease; the effects of drug and alcohol use. No GP, hospital or community health centre turns men away - and the staff, remember, are predominantly female.

Multi national corporations make unimaginable billions of dollars on drugs to help people with predominantly male afflictions such as those noted; however, additional millions have prioritized performance enhancing drugs for sport and sex - steroids and viargra, to name a couple, rather than towards prostate cancer.

Men are in the majority of positions at the top of the decision making tree: PMs; health ministers; hospital administrators; directors of drug manufacturing companies and all decision making bodies relating to legal, distribution, and subsidization of research and product development relating to health.

All that said, if you want to form a lobby group to address a male health need - do it and best of luck with it. You'll probably find a lot of women who would join in with such an initiative.

1: A few men at the top doesn't justify keeping your eyes closed to the suffering of the many men at the bottom.

2: Oh, form a lobby group? Sadly, one of the things that the few powerfull men don't do is protect weak men. Woase than that Marxist-feminism, (If you don't recognise the link, then you you don't understand feminism) is a belief in the POWER structures in society, and that these power structures are there to protect themselves, and to oppose alternatives. The very well-funded power structure today is feminism, and the one thing they will never allow is any independant funding of men's interest lobby groups for anything! Money is power nad visa-versa.

Women got funding from male politicians without any real entrenched opposition (powerful men like giving money to 'poor women', making them feel benevolent)... but now feminism is so generously funded, men can't get funding. Simply because the already funded feminist heirarchy hates men even more than they like women.