More punter-excusing(68 Posts)
This article makes it sound like a glamorous lifestyle choice. Feminist-bashing, consenting adults, etc etc.
I haven't read the blog it's talking about, according to the article it's been compared to American Psycho. Says it all really!
Yes Capt pretty grim isn't it?
junobaby thanks for linking that. Soul Destruction is an apt name for it.
I think reading it in small chunks would be best though. Jesus!
Baleno - I notice that your research into prostitution comes from reading the Prostitution Rights Activism Groups website, which will probably always offer a more positive view of prostitution. Instead how about reading this blog: Soul Destruction - the voices of prostitution survivors? You'll probably find a far less positive view of prostitution on there. But you probably won't, will you, because it won't feed into your worldview that men have the right to buy sex, as long as women are willing to sell it. We aren't talking 'happy hooker' stories here, we are talking beatings, rapes, coercion, under age girls with STDs, and so on and so forth. But that's OK as long as they are willing to sell yeah?
I'll wager he's not even aware that the positionality question even exists with regard to who can be neutral and objective towards whom, eh.
Are you attuned to issues of positionality and representation in your research, baleno? What's your position on criteriaology?
Oh, and if you don't know the answers to these questions (and I will be able to tell if you just google them) then you have absolutely no business whatsoever claiming that you are objective and unbiased when it comes to the question of whether or not it is oppressive to legitimise the purchase of sex.
Flora of course! Silly of me! It must be because I don't have a penis, and am therefore completely incapable of rational thought.
I do love kittens though!
Capt don't forget that we are reacting emotionally while he is neutrally observing, despite the fact that we do not participate in the orifice industry
and he does
I do wish that these 'terribly concerned about women's rights to sell their orifices to men' men, or, to give them their proper name, punters, would read the other threads before they come along to vomit all over a new one. Especially those who feel that they have 'read extensively about the subject' (aka paid a person to have sex on them).
3000+ comments on this subject alone: facts, figures, links to reports, studies etc etc put up, comments from 'happy hookers', punters, trafficked women, people who work in advocacy groups, and we're the ones who don't know what we're talking about.
This must be because we don't have penises. Only something with a penis is properly qualified to discuss this subject and we MUST jump and answer their questions, or we're all just being very stupid.
Please baleno, do tell me again how reports of a social phenomenon represent reality and how you are neutral and objective...
Oh, I missed the erudite edpistmological debate about neutrality!
everybody can post unless you are banned or the thread is locked
mind you, you are only here to inflame so nobody really needs to see your posts at all
Don't know. Why don't you ask MNHQ
save us reporting you
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Baleno has already admitted that he doesn't care if the women he pays to endure sex with him are repulsed by him.* Because apparently their feelings of repulsion do not meet an 'objective' standard.
As if feeling repulsed by someone or something is anything but a subjective experience.
*No way he's not a punter.
it's good isn't it? I saw it on twitter.
Flora I LOVED that cartoon!!! Husband did too.
it's funny-peculiar, that is for sure
and immediately out themselves as bizarrely interested in this one aspect of women's rights
Yes, don't they just.
They don't seem to be so invested in women's rights to bodily autonomy and justice when it comes to sexual violence and rape? There's a thread about rape on FWR running now - I don't see many "first time posters" on there going on and on about women's rights over their own bodies. Strange.
When it comes to talking about women's lack of representation in positions in real power - I don't see them on the wohm threads saying that women have the right to be equally represented in the board room, and in politics, in male dominated STEM jobs, academia and so on - it's always about women's right to sell sex. Odd that.
at least when some our recently banned friends have come on to tell us why we wimmin are doing the sex industry wrong they have eventually admitted they are punters
this one seems strangely shy
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
If Sweden is any different, it is because of more complex reasons.
No it's not. It's because of the sex laws. Prostitution is very different in a directly comparable country - the Netherlands - where it is legalised. There are many times as many prostitutes working in the Netherlands as in Sweden. It has boomed as an industry since legalisation.
Something being legalised = legitimatised by law = ok for people to do. Legalise prostitution = more punters willing to pay for sex = more demand = more women having to meet the demand = sex trafficking. It is that simple.
Straight to the source what about women in prostitution who do not support your right to buy sex?
Whether you are a punter is very relevant to this discussion. It places you with a direct and vested interest in continuing with this discussion, particularly when you have yourself tried to claim extra weight by describing yourself as neutral.
> Who were you listening to and why? What was the context?
First, I went straight to the source: prostitutes' rights activism groups. Then, I widened my research to take into account a wider array of opinions and facts. My understanding so far is that prostitution is overwhelmingly a free choice.
> I do not believe the law should punish women for selling sex.
I didn't ask whether women should be punished for selling sex. That would have been akin to asking whether selling sex by choice is a crime, not a right. I asked whether women own their bodies and have the right to sell sex if they wish so. If they have such right then we shouldn't interfere with it.
> I do not believe there is a right to buy sex.
And I didn't ask this. But if there isn't a right to buy sex, should the law punish people for buying sex from people who choose to sell it? If you answer "yes" then you are effectively punishing people for selling sex, hence reread above.
> Have you ever paid for sex?
What relation has this with this discussion? Should we talk about ourselves or about the subject at hand?
> Do men have the right to sell women's bodies for sex? Because that is what happens at the moment.
If that happens then such men should be prosecuted, without interfering with the choices of women who are doing it themselves.
> Do you know where that happens less? Sweden. Sweden is not seen as an attractive place for sex traffickers and pimps. Do you know how they know that? Wiretapping information gained by the Swedish police has told them that - from the sex-traffickers themselves - Sweden is not an attractive place for traffickers because of the Nordic law.
I come from a country where hiring a street prostitute is illegal. Guess what? There are street prostitutes, many foreigners. And their clients, of course. Lots of them. Why is it so? Because there aren't enough policemen to enforce the law, I would bet. You can't just make a law and think it will restrain people. If Sweden is any different, it is because of more complex reasons.
You sometimes they come along with all their facts and figures lined up to show us how knowledgeable they are
and immediately out themselves as bizarrely interested in this one aspect of women's rights This one isn't even doing that, he's just got his fingers in his ears and banging on with his important opinion.
Join the discussion
Please login first.