Legalise prostitution to counter feminism (yes really)

What is her doctorate in?

I also wonder if figures on the economics of the 'sex industry' include things like vibrators, condoms, erotic novels, willy-shaped chocolates for hen parties, etc. Because women buy these things and (unless you are a fucking religious maniac) there isn't any kind of moral argument against the purchase and use of a vibrator or a bottle of chocolate body paint. At least, no more than there is against every other kind of consumer goods that maybe being produced and sold by workers on low wages with poor employment rights.

"Male demand for sexual entertainments of all kinds is thus growing, and ineradicable

Is it? And even if were why need it be accommodated? "

Agree with this. Once upon a time, no doubt the appetite for bear baiting and cockfighting was growing; doesn't mean they weren't eradicated!

It's such utter tosh it's difficult to pick highlights but...

In addition, the demand for commercial and professional sexual entertainment is growing steadily world-wide, as economic growth drives demand for luxuries, the internet creates new meeting places for sexual encounters (both amateur and professional), and globalisation makes sexual markets international in scope

She doesn't write terribly well does she?. What point is the reference to" the demand for luxuries " got to do with any other part of that sentence?

A key objection to the sex industry is that it damages women and that the presence of pornography, lap-dancing and prostitution in a country promotes rape and other violence against women

Even if porn etc didn't promote rape and violence they are still damaging to women.

Male demand for sexual entertainments of all kinds is thus growing, and ineradicable

Is it? And even if were why need it be accommodated?

As economists Levitt and Dubner recognised in their SuperFreakonomics book, the puzzle is not why intelligent and attractive women become prostitutes, but rather why more women are not tempted into this lucrative occupation

And there's what she thinks is the killer reply to the question "but you wouldn't want your daughter doing it,would you? ".

"Campaigns to eliminate sex trafficking typically identify no more than five victims – at disproportionate public expense (Magnanti 2012: 156)."

She has the GALL to write this, when there has been court case after court case, tens (scores?) of men imprisoned, and victims identified in the hundreds and no-one knows the scale. Does she think all those girls are lying? That the convictions are unsound? She resents the public expenditure on pursuing these cases?

She is taking the piss, seriously, it's a shockingly crap piece with "huge agenda" printed all over it, cherry picking things to back up her ideas, dropping unsupported "facts" in there and hoping no-one notices, and drawing poorly thought out conclusions around cause and effect. She uses stats from areas which are known for high rates of child exploitation and describes them as "sex positive" and never once mentions that explotation. In fact she says that the only exploitation going on, is the exploitation of the people who are paying.

I mean it's cobblers. Anyone with half a brain, the ability to read newspapers, and a modicum of imagination can see that.

That doesn't make sense sausage.

Before money there was bartering. For a monkey, some berries could work well for currency. When you say "taught them to use money" I guess you actually mean "taught them to transact" ie exchange something they had for something they wanted?

I did read the whole report BTW well apart from the conclusion because I'd got bored by that point. It was drivel.

The monkeys thing - have you looked at the study she was quoting? I would be interested in a link to that.

She was selecting awfully, and some of the stuff was just obvious nonsense. Like the trafficking stuff. It's all over the news, there have been loads of convictions. And yet she just said oh yeah it doesn't happen and it's a waste of money for the authorities to look into it. In the context of what has been happening in this country around this issue, that is crass in the extreme. And bizarre, really.

I did mean "considered unconscionable " not certain things still are unconscionable but are accepted, if that makes sense.

I agree. Lots of terrible things used to happen and are now unthinkable. Lots of things which were unconscionable are now accepted.

To get rid of prostitution you would need to get rid of money. If you read the whole report Hakim quotes a study where Monkeys were taught to use "money" and the moment they understood money males would spend "coins" for sexual favours. So best thing to do is hand out food and housing free and take money away and then there is no benefit in selling sex.

So assuming that money wont disappear in the near future there will always demand and so long as there is demand and money some people will sell sex. Of course so long as people fear the police no one will come forward to highlight any trafficking. And there is the issue of trafficking victims and those who are migrant workers doing sex work to pay for the journey. I believe that is covered in Hakim's report as well.

Lass, I was actually seeking to use the language I would use for any other profession out of respect, if that makes sense.

Re imagining a world with no paid sex workers, it's not a question of it being difficult. I can imagine a world with no religion as well. I just don't think it will happen. Plus I am a pessimist and I really don't see that there is much point talking about an ideal world.

That said, even as a pessimist, Hakim's attitude horrifies me!

Oh, I get the hilarity! But the thing is, if you're earning quite a lot of cash in hand, it's actually quite difficult to spend. You need to bank it to spend online, for example, and if you want to save it instead of blowing it all on shoes and handbags. And once it's banked, there's a papertrail should HMRC get interested...

So a lot of prostitutes do pay income tax. They might claim to be massage therapists or whatever, though.

Sorry hirples I didn't mean to be mean.

Obviously it doesn't preclude it, but it's a bit optimistic to imagine that it's even common, for people working cash in hand to be declaring it all. If it's a company with employees and they are paid in cash and it goes back to the central place and they get paid PAYE and so forth then sure, but individuals working casually or by themselves and so forth, I mean, that's really optimistic.

If anyone fancies calling in to share your views ) she is on BBC radio Scotland tomorrow morning at 10am. Along with a woman in prostitution (she have evidence in the northern Ireland inquiry and said she was a rep of the international union of sex workers, which has 8-10 members). There is also a rep from a woman's organization which campaigns to decriminalise those who sell sex but criminalize punters and pimps.

I didn't say all prostitutes pay tax, nor did I say that cash-in-hand workers who do fill out tax returns do so entirely honestly. But neither of those things are impossible, either.

Sorry I don't mean to laugh so much but, really???

I mean, I'm a bit boggled!

You think that everyone who gets paid cash in hand declares all of it? Ah hahahahahahahahahahahhaahah

Um

Just, what?

Do you know any people?

The people I know who get paid cash in hand don't declare all of it! Some don't declare any of it....

do you seriously think that! That's quite funny

The IEA is a rather extreme outfit. Essentially their ideology conflates "lack of government intervention" with "freedom". My understanding is that this is consistent with people being allowed to pay other people to be punched: market exchanges are a matter of free choice, and we make the world a worse place if we attempt to curtail people's freedom.

Yes, prostitution is mostly cash in hand (unless you're a Lord, of course) but that doesn't mean tax isn't paid. Taxi drivers and window cleaners are mostly cash in hand too., but fill out tax returns.

Yes sex industry includes things like lovehoney, anne summers, phone sex, webcam, strip clubs, sex shops, all that sort of stuff + prostitution.

I imagine that most prostitution is cash in hand, surely.

I thought that figure related to the sex industry, not just prostitution?

I agree it's pretty much a random figure and impossible to ascertain, but the gvt started publishing the numbers a couple of years ago, something to do with EU regs on what constitutes GDP.

Hotel rooms, serviced apartments. Condoms, lube, tissues, babywipes, showergel, sheets and towels, washing powder, electricity. Restaurants, bars, theatres, taxi drivers, flower, perfume and chocolate sellers...

Apart from rent by the hour hotels you cannot calculate how much money spent on these legitimate items is being generated by being connected with prostitution. The figure of £4 billion is a random figure.

I think whirlpool's analogy was better..,