Sex: My British Job. Channel 4

Sabrina
The LSE report is a bit of a joke-but as you don't take my word for it-try these
On the Cho paper
www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/15/legal-prostitution-and-sex-trafficking-from-the-annals-of-bad-economic-research/
www.lauraagustin.com/irresponsible-use-of-trafficking-data-or-garbage-in-garbage-out

Oh, and just for the record - I'll trust the LSE over the NZ report on trafficking statistics, any day of the week. and so should you - as you well know.

Who says I haven't read it? One poster (back on the Invisible thread) said she wouldn't read it. You take that to mean none of us has?

Mind you- your posts are so mind-numbingly dull and not-to-the-point - I wouldn't blame people for not reading them.

But it's far easier for you to try to discredit individual posters on here (for not reading your links - quelle horreur!) than to actually address the many other posts on this thread that are not to do with the NZ study, eh??

I wish I could earn money by posting feministy things on the internets.

Sabrina
Have you not twigged that we don't hold that report to be particularly, erm, accurate yet?

Oh yes-as you have not read it you feel able to make that conclusion

Sabrina (post Mon 14-Oct-13 22:03:08) “Prostitution increases following legalisation - that is an economic fact wino” Er-no actually. Careful surveys of the numbers in NZ pre and post decriminalization show no change in NZ. Similar results in NSW-and also the number of prostitutes in Western Australia (prostitution illegal) and in NSW (decriminalized) are the same-so whatever your economic theory says the actual results show there is no change

Yeh yeh wino. Have you not twigged that we don't hold that report to be particularly, erm, accurate yet?

flora cold Sabrina-
re not being able to speak English in the NZ survey. I refer you to section 1.5.1 p25 of the Report of the prostitution law review committee on the operation of the prostitution reform act of 2003 of where it says "Participants whose English was not sufficient to understand the questions without an interpreter were excluded. However few people were excluded on this basis So in other words it does not materially affect the conclusions of the report

hopefully he won't.

Sabrina - don't! he's the type that might take it as a compliment

I think they are talking about the prostituted themselves there. it was scathing towards the punters, satisfyingly. Their agency was certainly not denied in that extract as far as I could see.

Still though. Sin. The Catholic church has something to say on the matter.

Last comment was in response to Sabrina's

Of course

Flora: scallops I read the bearing a greater burden of guilt part as meaning a that they have the greater sin, not that they would be feeling guilty.

Oh yes so did I. I know they won't be feeling guilty! But it does imply that those prostituted are sinful too. Not great.

SinisterSal, not sure which bit you are referring to but having read what WhentheRed wrote again I think the whole of the first quote is about those who are prostituted (I originally thought it was about the punters)

While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure. certainly seems to be talking about the prostituted person. I hope otherwise it is ascribing a lack of agency with regards punters that is just not true.

I just felt that there was no empathy with those prostituted. Mind you the whole talk of sin just makes my teeth itch. It is inadequate to describe child rape and it is victim blaming to describe those prostituted.

coldwinter - it can't be by the quality of his posts. It must be the length of them.

Wino just wants to justify punters - and he can only do that by endorsing the happy hooker myth - and his wonderful (!) personal view of how some women are 'suited' to prostitution.

Do you think shills get paid by the hour, or by the quality of their comments?

Flora - Yes he is. And given the enormous proportion of women who are prostituted in Australia and are foreign born, that would have a major distorting affect on the survey. But then he doesn't care about the truth. He just wants to convince us that prostitution is just another job.

Flora, yes they do indeed state it is outside their remit - sorry if that wasn't clear from my post. I meant to c&p the whole conclusion (a la wino ) but it wouldn't let me for some reason.

The point was that they were making an empirical analysis on the effects of legalisation - not passing judgement on what the social/legal consequences should be- that was beyond their remit.

cold is he still wittering on about the NZ surveys that didn't even speak to women who could not speak English? Surely not.

Why does it seem improbable that so many men in Victoria use prostitutes?

And perhaps a bit of double counting happened - the fact is:

1. You don't know that, it is a guess.
2. The amount of women being prostituted will still be incredibly high
3. A large proportion of those women were not born in Australia. Most were born in Asia. Which raises questions of trafficking, being forced into prostitution to pay off debts, and similar clear exploitation of women who have few choices.

scallops I read the bearing a greater burden of guilt part as meaning a that they have the greater sin, not that they would be feeling guilty.

I didn't read it like that scallops - I read it as a examination of the 'sin' aspect of it. Was quite clear that the sin lies with the exploiters rather than the prostituted themselves. There wasn't much to say about them in that context, the big sinners are the pimps and punters.