Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

privilege and prostitution

282 replies

ezinma · 26/03/2014 15:15

Appearing in my social media today is one of those sharp and sassy thoughts for the day that I’m invited to approve by sharing. Where better to share it than here:

So, you are against prostitution. But you're an attractive person with a boyfriend. Who I assume you have sex with. That gives you privilege. Some people aren't so lucky. The only way they can get laid is by paying for it. Why do you think you have the right to experience one of life's fundamental experiences and others don't?

It’s from tumblr so we ought to make some allowances. Let’s, if we may, overlook the fact that I am a middle-aged frump with a civil partner; the debatable contention that sex, in and of itself, is one of life’s fundamental experiences; the erasure of women who aren’t “lucky” enough to have a boyfriend and whose right to A Fundamental Experience presumably requires them to seduce a partner using skills that cannot be withdrawn from a bank machine; and the regrettable (though now unavoidable) misuse of ‘privilege’ to refer to any old scenario where one group of people has a little bit more access to something than another group does. (Have I missed anything?)

What remains is the daring suggestion that a woman might be against prostitution because she is attractive. Since it's already well established that we fat old frumps are against prostitution — no glamorous john would waste his beer money on buying our flabby arses, and we are bitter about it! — then I’m left with only one conclusion: a woman’s attractiveness has no influence on her opinions about prostitution.

A lightbulb moment for me. Thanks, tumblr. Hmm

OP posts:
gilogowu · 27/03/2014 21:20

Do you understand why prostitutes do not want to be "rescued" by do-gooders?

ezinma · 27/03/2014 21:16

Do you know better about prostitution than prostitutes do?

I doubt that anyone with highish status and a financial stake in any industry is in favour of criminalising its customers or abolishing it altogether. People who work for tobacco firms may not have the most objective viewpoint on the dangers of smoking, nor would I expect them to hold a favourable opinion of anti-cigarette organisations.

Why could it be that out of these possible conflicts:

— public health campaigners vs the industry
— the industry vs its own workers
— campaigners vs workers

the focus is so often on number three, the nasty "moralising" do-gooders trying to put decent hardworking etc people out of a job?

OP posts:
gilogowu · 27/03/2014 21:07

Did you see what I did there? I did exactly what you lot always do- dismiss a prostitute as "not representative" if she doesn't say what you want to hear.

btw I haven't admitted anything.

FloraFox · 27/03/2014 21:01

How would he know what's representative? He's already admitted he only listens to pro-punter prostitutes.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/03/2014 20:37

Oooh - gilo's talking about what's 'representative' now Grin Where's Buffy when you need her??

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/03/2014 20:36

Did you ever watch Five Daughters, gilo?

FloraFox · 27/03/2014 20:35

No, I've listened to prostitutes who favour decriminalisation or legalisation. I've thought about what they have to say, particularly about harm reduction. I've read studies that favour decriminalisation or legalisation and thought about how that might impact my views, especially on harm reduction. I've read legal analysis of rights and thought about how that might impact my views.

I've come to a view that legalising and decriminalisation does not reduce harm to acceptable levels and that laws should be crafted that protect the vulnerable even if that impinges on the "rights" of some people who are not vulnerable. I put rights in quotation marks because I don't believe there is a right to buy or sell sex in either a legal or philosophical sense. This approach is consistent with most laws which impact on some people for the benefit of others. I also believe prostitution is part of male domination in society in placing women as sex class objects for the gratification of men.

So no, I don't only listen to people who say what I want to hear. It's only punters that do it. The reason is that you need to close your mind to the reality of what you are doing so that you can look at yourself in the mirror.

gilogowu · 27/03/2014 20:34

I don't think Rachel Moran is representative.

gilogowu · 27/03/2014 20:33

And look at the attention Patricia Perquin in Amsterdam was given after all her tragic tales about life as a prostitutes. (Well they would be tragic if they were true, she was exposed as a liar)

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/03/2014 20:32
gilogowu · 27/03/2014 20:32

The prostitutes with tragic tales to tell (and if they have a book to sell even better) are the ones given attention. Not the typical everyday ones.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/03/2014 20:30

And thank god for people like Rachel willing to speak out about the reality of prostitution for so many women- otherwise the IUSW (pimps-r-us) etc would be holding centre stage.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/03/2014 20:28

How is life is cloud cuckoo land, gilo?

gilogowu · 27/03/2014 20:28

"especially as the latter aren't likely to be the ones able to do any shouting in the debate."

Rachel Moran is given more publicity than any so-called "privilege" prostitute.

gilogowu · 27/03/2014 20:27

How about everyone (the trafficked, the "privileged" and every prostitute inbetween)?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/03/2014 20:25

Well, I could say the same about you, gilo.

The question is - who should our laws safeguard? The people who shout the loudest about their 'rights' or the people who are vulnerable, coerced, trafficked? I say the latter - especially as the latter aren't likely to be the ones able to do any shouting in the debate.

gilogowu · 27/03/2014 20:23

And where does your info come from? Melissa Farley and Julie Blindel Bindel?

gilogowu · 27/03/2014 20:22

Do you only listen to prostitutes who say what you want to hear?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/03/2014 20:19

Again, gilo - why should that one prostitute's voice drown out the voices of the others? The vulnerable, the trafficked?

FloraFox · 27/03/2014 20:19

The fact that you haven't heard of any murders since legalisation demonstrates your lack of thinking and understanding about this issue and that all your information comes from the pro-prostitution lobby. Pretty shoddy.

And people lose their homes everywhere. It's got nothing to do with the Nordic model.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/03/2014 20:18

Funds for social work in Sweden are scarce because so much funding has been diverted to policing.

Don't think that's how it works, actually. But I'll read any evidence you have that might support your point? Any actual evidence, that is - not rantings from the pro-lobby pimp 'advocates'.

gilogowu · 27/03/2014 20:16

This woman thinks it isn't worth enforcing. A Swedish prostitute (not the same one as above, another one)

gilogowu · 27/03/2014 20:15

Actually it does.

Funds for social work in Sweden are scarce because so much funding has been diverted to policing.

JuliaScurr · 27/03/2014 20:15

no, it's because govts like ours prioritise subsidising the banking system over social welfare

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/03/2014 20:15

I agree with him.

Swipe left for the next trending thread