scottish feminists -

I will ferret around if you really need me to, but I suspect it would be more gratifying to be able to say there is no real valid evidence. If there was, I think a new reason to ignore it would be found.

Julia, your link doesn't say that the government supplies anaesthetic syringes, just that it gives advice about their use.

Yes, it is horrific to think that women might want such analgesia.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/21/prostitution-jacquismith

Julia, I'd be very interested to have a source link to your claim women are given anaesthetic syringes in Australia.

Dittany

"Just as a matter of interest, how are you so knowledgeable about how Trish Godman went about gaining support MAT?"

"sounds a lot better informed (although clearly putting the blackest spin on it) than your average poster about the sex industry on Mumnset."

Of course I'm informed. I'm seldom in the habit of speaking a load of tosh on a subject I have no idea about and haven't researched. Under the Freedom of Information Act it's quite astounding what may be gleaned. Gather information, join up the proverbial dots, evaluate. Seemples.

Apologies for my description of nice white middle class ladies, though having a simple look at the Soroptomists websites for Scotland it would be easy for some to understand why I thought that an apt description.

Are you saying that we need to challenge rape culture?

If so, yes I think we do, for all women.

Men need to be clearly told by society that penetrating girls and women is not a right.

However, I think society needs to very clearly spell out that the institution of prostitution is a human rights travesty and that johns and pimps are deviants and predators. A very simple way to do this would be to make paying for sex an act that would put you on the sex offenders register.

Beachcomber: Your last paragraph is exactly what I meant by my last sentence, my difference is that we need to do this attitude change by opening up debate and offering acceptance of different needs and lifestyles.

So again all the points about zero tolerance, and cultural and state ambivolence to sexual exploitation, rape, misogyny could be tackled in part by having a society that is much more open about sexuality, what humans want to get up to, not what some moral police think they should get up to.

Bit to early in the morning not sure I am getting my point across, I think it is easier though to define zero tolerance, power relations etc, if they can be shown to be clearly definable. The trouble in part with our society is that from state sponsored to private actions, we give out mixed and muddy messages. Making clear what is defiantly and unnegotiably beyond exceptance means to some extent engaging with what we do accept.

I agree that the women in prostitution need support and alternatives. And I agree that we need to come down hard on traffickers/pimps.

But that isn't enough IMO.

There will always be less well off and vulnerable members of society. There will always be ruthless predators who will exploit these people for financial gain.

We need to go after the johns. Society needs to send a clear zero tolerance message that men do not have the right to pay for sexual access to women. We need a cultural shift, an attitudinal shift. If society, through, laws, education and socialization sends a strong clear message that it is unacceptable for one sex to sexually exploit the other, then that exploitation will decrease (humans are by nature quite easy to socialize). If society is ambivalent at best and condoning at worst, current levels of exploitation will continue.

I will try and be clear. As an end result stopping prostitution entirely would be my aim. As with all trafficking of men, women, children, animals, for any and all reasons.

What might be contraversial is that I do not believe that making a law even a international law policed and enforced as stringently as possible will cease the trade. Ground up the women and those involved in facilitating prostitution, security, drivers, maids etc. Have to have easily identified routes to education, or employment and massivly enlarged support services for addiction and housing etc. That takes away the argument that says they are "better off" earning money that way.

Make it economicaly advantages to those in the middle of the chain to give up those at the very top. Send those at the very top to jail for life, and do the damdest to recover as much of their assets and any assets of their family and friends that can be linked to trafficking,

Engage in a wide debate about sex, therapy, personal intimancy, monogomy.

Sorry for the typos btw.

Some people seem to be arguing for harm reduction, some for other things.

I have read back your comments and I'm not too sure what approach you advocate.

In Australia where 'legalised', the State supplies anaesthetic syringes to prostituted women with the caveat that it can disguise injuries to the vulva.

In what way is it progressive to have the government sanction the 'right' of men to cause that level of sexual violence? Do you think they will have a different attitude to the other women in their lives?

Beachcomber: I am asking for clarification, are you thinking that myself and others are arguing for harm reduction as opposed to the ending of prostitution?

Not sure I feel like engaging too much with pro sex industry arguments, so forgive me for copying a couple of posts I made on another thread.

Where you have 'harm reduction' AKA as legalized prostitution, you have trafficking.

It is as simple as that. We see it in Amsterdam, Germany, Nevada, and the areas of Australia where prostitution is condoned.
To support legalized prostitution is to prop up trafficking, child prostitution, gender inequality and violence against women. They are part and parcel of the same thing.

The people who exploit prostituted women, be they buyers or sellers, do not turn into nice guys overnight just because you make the institution of prostitution legal.

It is just like gambling.

If you create areas where gambling/casinos are encouraged, what happens is you get a proliferation of gamblers and casinos. Alongside this, due to there being a proliferation of gamblers, you will also get people holding private poker evenings and other non-declared gambling activities. And you will also get people who might not have considered gambling to be an acceptable activity deciding to join in because they are being sent the message that gambling is an OK thing to do.

And of course the casino owners are delighted because they get state protection for their activities of bleeding people dry of their money.

The dynamics of prostitution are very similar. Except of course a million times worse because the product is human beings. People seem to forgot that the institution of prostitution is about money. Men pimp out women and girls because they can make a lot of money from doing so. They can make a lot of money because there is a big market for sexually abusing human females.

Legalizing the activities of these predators won't protect women - it will just make it easier for the predators to operate and make money.

Notice how much of the Donna Hughes paper I linked to is about money, markets, she even talks about prostitution in terms of a country's GDP - that is how big a business it is. What is happening in Germany is terrifying - local councils are becoming dependent on tax revenue from brothels and pimps and the pimps are putting pressure on the government to advertise prostitution 'jobs' in job centres and to withdraw a woman's unemployment benefit if she refuses the 'job'. The government has said that they will not do this but there is nothing to stop them from doing so legally.

Btw, how did your searches re my gender pan out?

Actually, I quite like a good stout. :)

It was a joke, sorry. Trying to lighten this up a little.

What, you prefer uninformed contributions? How odd.

Almost as refreshing as half a stout.

Yes, refreshing, isn't it?

I wish I knew about this proposal before, are there any other similar ones in the offing?

Dittany, most observers of this forum will see it in action. Looking at any ideologists in full sway it doesn't take long to see how blinkered they are.

Far from way off topic, Trish Godman used interesting tactics in her 'consultation'. She pushed the VAW agenda, dismissing the views of academics and others. Given the VAW groups are funded by government and have to play to a certain tune, she went initially to gain their support and views (which are all the same) to give her the answers she wanted. Quite a few were obviously going to back the bill, their funding depends on it.
She went on to harness the support of the middle class nice white ladies. One ladies view,' there was no prostition per say in her area but she was concerned at anecdotal evidence purporting one, or two females were suspected of having drinks bought for them and then having sex with said purchaser of half a stout. Possibly the start of prostitution? Carrying out a consultation you'd expect those invited to comment be at least comfortable with women having sex outside of marriage ?

Look at the OP, 'sisters' were being urged to email the Trish Godmans consultation was 'compedent and sufficient' to have the Rhoda Grant bill backed and it to sail into law. The radical fem machine in full swing. Irrelevant if you had no idea what it was about, or of consequences to prostitutes north of the border. Some not even belonging to Scotland would say Trish Godman had done a magnificent consultation process ?

Spending time growing up in the patriarchy can make you susceptable to doing as you're told, without question. Would also follow, if you're that type of person you'll automatically do what a women asks you to do without question.

But not unsurprising.

That is disappointing!