Sex: My British Job. Channel 4

The entitlement in your posts is palpable Springrite.

The Nordic model wasn't created by Sweden. It was created by radical feminists Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin.

It isn't a 'new' radical feminist position to analyse paid for sex as abuse. It is an idea that has been part of radical feminism since the 1960s and which is the culmination of observations made by radicals over centuries. It is just relatively new that this analysis has been enshrined in law.

And the analysis is rather more complex that our gentlemen poster presents.

The radical feminist analysis (which is increasingly being adopted by countries which seek gender equality and which have good parliamentary representation of women), identifies the institution of prostitution as a barrier to gender equality and as violence against women. This analysis treats prostitution as a human rights issue and women as human. (Women as human! Radical or what?!)

If a gentlemen cannot tell the difference between systematic gendered exploitation, gendered violence, the trafficking of human beings; and, being a miner or working in an office, might I suggest that he does some 'work experience' and sells his own arse to all comers in order to locate some humanity on the issue (whilst remaining thankful that at least as a man he does not risk pregnancy and retains the protection of his male privilege).

www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Briefing-Law-and-policies-on-prostitution-and-THB-Sweden-1203082.pdf

Swedish prostitution policies are particularly innovative. They rest firmly on human rights principles such as:

Prostitution is a serious barrier to gender equality.

Prostitution is a serious problem that is harmful to the prostituted woman or child but also to society at large.

Prostitution is male violence against women, especially targeting those who are economically, racially or ethnically marginalized/oppressed.

Prostitution is incompatible with internationally accepted principles
of human rights: the dignity and worth of the human person and the equal rights of men and women.

Prostitution is a gender specific crime;the majority of victims are women and girls, although a number of young men and boys also fall victims.

Women in prostitution are not to be criminalized or subjected to administrative punishments, and have a right to live lives without being subjected to violence through the harm of prostitution.

To end prostitution, the political, social, legal and economic conditions
under which women and girls live must be ameliorated by introducing measures such as poverty reduction, sustainable development, measures that promote gender equality and counteract male violence against women and girls, as well as social programs focusing specifically on women and girls.

Eliminating the demand as the root cause of prostitution is a cornerstone of Swedish policies. Males must take responsibility for their own and other’s oppressive sexual behaviour and change it.

Prostitution and trafficking in human beings for sexual purposes are seen as issues that cannot, and should not be separated; both are harmful practices and intrinsically linked.

All forms of legal or policy measures that legalize different prostitution activities, such as brothels, or that decriminalize the perpetrators of the prostitution industry, including pimps, traffickers, brothel owners, and buyers, are threats to gender equality and the rights of women and girls to live lives free of male violence.

You think that a man can't have an opinion without it being motivated by self-interest? Tut tut.

That makes a change from the usual accusations that women opposed to prostitution are opposed because they have delicate sensibilities and are clutching their pearls.

The only thing which makes such women clutch their pearls is their distaste at the thought of non-alpha males being allowed to have sex.

The Nordic model is effectively the model created by Sweden, a country which was still sterilising disabled people until 1976.

I am aware of the Nordic model and the political opinion which is its central tenet.

I am sure that the organised criminals in Scandinavia are gracefully accepting defeat: ‘We at the Swedish Mafia are good sports and know when we are beaten. We see the error of our ways and will certainly accept this with quiet good humour, without trying to get around the letter or spirit of the law in any way’.

Not the word I would use to describe a man who pays a woman so he can use her body.

I do not recall saying that I required the services of prostitutes.

And cutting supply i.e. prosecuting pimps, is evidence based as the most effective way to cut trafficking, prostitution, etc.

So why are they pursuing the punters? Is it because it’s similar to the drug trade? - i.e., they succeed in getting only a few of the small and medium-sized fish, while the more important bosses remain untouched, essentially scratching the surface of the problem?

I meant "fuck" in the literal sense, not the metaphorical one. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

A gentleman!!!

Not the word I would use to describe a man who pays a woman so he can use her body.

And cutting supply i.e. prosecuting pimps, is evidence based as the most effective way to cut trafficking, prostitution, etc.

You aren't seeking an education. You have a viewpoint.

Perhaps I do not have a viewpoint. As I said, the perceptions and theories on the thread are comparatively new.

Whether a gentleman will receive an education on this thread among the swear words and truly appalling sexual metaphors is another matter.

But you can fuck 'em, eh?

You can’t fix the entire world, mate, including the fact that billions live in third world poverty. She could have stayed at home and got on with it, like the other 99.999%. It was a choice in the natural meaning of the word.

Grennie, I am aware that there can be actual bodily coercion, particularly in street prostitution which is related to drug abuse. There is no argument there. Of course, society goes for the easy target – the punter, leaving the pimps and higher organised crime figures to carry on.

Spring - Where I live 95% of the women in prostitution are on class A drugs. I know many women who have in the past been prostituted. None would say it was a "free" choice. They were homeless, or coerced into it, or had suffered lots of childhood sexual abuse and so were "primed" to be abused by others.

There might be one or two "happy hookers". But the vast majority are not.

Springrite what the fuck are you talking about? Exulting in what? The realisation that objectivism is utter bullshit? Not sure how that is exulting.

"The women in this programme chose to borrow money in the full knowledge that they would have to use their initial sex work earnings to repay the debt. They created the situation."

There is no evidence of that. A number of the women worked as waitresses first, indicating that they did not think they would need to become prostitutes to pay off the debt. Did they create the crippling poverty and lack of opportunity that would force a woman to leave her family and move thousands of miles to fuck disgusting creeps who pee all over the place? Your conclusion is not supported by the programme but is a result of your biases and desired outcome.

If you don't know the difference between working in an office / mine / factory / whatever and being fucked by a parade of strangers, maybe ask your mommy.

"I thought Germaine Greer now said that she realises the sexual revolution was just another way to exploit women?"

She did later come to this conclusion, at least with regard to the free love/swinging, etc. aspects of it, which are much more of interest to men.

CC, ‘Sic’ is generally to be read as simply: ‘thus’, signifying either an error, unusual usage, etc.

Your second paragraph makes no sense.

“Your miner…his job was freely chosen…”

On that point: no, he is down that pit out of economic necessity, like almost everybody else in whatever dire job they are doing.

The women in this programme chose to borrow money in the full knowledge that they would have to use their initial sex work earnings to repay the debt. They created the situation. This was not a case of trafficking.

I thought Germaine Greer now said that she realises the sexual revolution was just another way to exploit women?

Well, I was rather hoping that someone would fill in the detail for me. Prostitution (and porn) debates in the past tended to feature, on the one hand, people like Mary Whitehouse and Malcolm Muggeridge presenting the Biblical view and, on the other, a couple of liberals bemoaning the horrors of sexual repression.

Florafox, if that is true, it is disappointing. I hope that you are not exulting in it.

Frodosmum, 70s feminism had a very different face at that time. Many felt that the system was ‘down’ on female sexuality to the point of air-brushing it out of existence. That’s why you had feminists like Germaine Greer and Shere Hite posing naked in porno magazines such as Hustler and Screw. Today, of course, they approach the matter somewhat differently.

springrite thanks for quoting me.

Firstly, there is no need for the smug little (sic) in the quote, the phrase have sex on is a legitimate way of describing the difference between the sex that two willing partners have and the sex a punter has with a prostitute. (sic) usually denotes a spelling mistake.

Secondly, my post was about coerced consent, are you seriously conflating coerced consent where, under British law, lack of consent for the acts which follow constitute a crime with not particularly enjoying doing some photocopying? Seriously? The special element is that lack of consent within sex is a crime, it is called rape, this has nothing to do with my or any other person's view of sex. Your miner may well rather be elsewhere than down a mine shaft, but his job was freely chosen, the women in this programme have not freely chosen and are being forced to pay off debts using their bodies, can you now see the difference?

Thirdly, Most men find this definition of abuse difficult to take seriously, and women disagree on the matter...

I agree that most men find this definition of abuse difficult to take seriously , as it is men that are generally, within the scenario depicted in the TV show, the abusers. No one wants to think of themselves or their friends as abusive, so they ridicule and disparage the idea that they are. Women disagree on the matter , 'women' are not a homogeneous blob, they are capable of thinking and discussing what they like.

I have no clue what you're talking about with party lines and new radical feminist theory. I don't identify as a radical feminist, so I am ill-equipped to comment.

Springrite if you mean "objective theory" in the sense of objectivism, I'm sure radical feminists don't give a fuck about whether it is "legitimate" to put forward their views in that way.

HTH

I have been viewing similar discussions on other sites. If I have understood it all correctly, the new radical feminist theory on prostitution holds that paying for sex is an act of abuse in itself, as opposed to the abuse being the poor working conditions, violent pimps and the presence of organised crime, etc. When pressed for details, the proponents say, more specifically, that it constitutes abuse by definition because the person doing the work would not want to be there doing it without these payments.

For example, on this thread a poster defined the problem thus:

To have sex on (sic) someone who isn't actively willing and wouldn’t be if they hadn't been paid for is abuse.

Given that this applies to most jobs, in fact, all jobs in which the person does not actively enjoy the work, there must be some special element in sex work to the exclusion of all other forms of work which makes it a special category to be regarded as ‘abuse’. Non-enjoyment of work cannot be the sole basis. I rarely actually want to be in my office, and the average miner would rather be doing something else than chipping or blasting at the coal face.

What is this special element? Does it come down to a subjective view of the nature of sex? There is widespread disagreement over the issue. Most men find this definition of abuse difficult to take seriously, and women disagree on the matter, some complaining that this gets them thrown out of certain feminist groups because they are not following the ‘party line’. Even women who disapprove of prostitution for other reasons draw the line at this new definition.

If opinions depend on the person’s overall view of sex itself, it is legitimate to put this forward as an objective theory?

Minniehaha - so because you've never seen it, (it being the abuse of women), therefore it doesn't exist?

Or therefore it shouldn't be allowed to impede "the sex industry" being seen as something benign and marvellous with it being great for a man to pay a woman to have sex with him?

Have you got any points to make other than to huffily call us names?

Another revealing documentary on ITV right now. The murky world of child sex tourism. It's their agency though, innit