thelondonpaper - apparently visiting prostitutes is a perfectly normal thing to do...

[ChukkyPig]

Yesterday they ran a piece in the "columnist" section where people can send stories in.

It was a piece by "john" who basically justified his use of prositutes on the grounds that modern women are awful and won't look at him so what's he supposed to do.

here

I was a bit but thought, never mind, the letters page tomorrow will be full of letters picking holes in the piece.

Today the letters page was crammed with responses to the article, ALL of which said that it was sad the guy was so lonely, it was understandable that he used prostitutes, that it was fine these days, and that anyway modern women are shallow bitches so what do they expect men to do.

I was a bit shocked TBH that the paper didn't print a single letter mentioning exploitation, trafficing, that women aren't awful and what's he on about etc but no.

Anyway the paper had picked this as a "hot topic" so I go online expecting to see some anti-prostitution comments. But there aren't! One person (out of about 30) mentions trafficing/coercion but that's it. The rest of the responses are sympathetic and understanding, mostly saying that there are decent women out there.

Where's the moral outrage? I know it's a rag but this is bizarre all the same.

I have posted a comment but oddly it hasn't appeared yet - maybe it's being moderated - or maybe for some reason they are only displaying sympathetic responses.

I am having an outraged moment - please feel free to join me...

And - do publications have to give a balanced view on their letters pages? or are they allowed to just print one point of view? Guessing the latter...

CP: Well some would. I have met one or two (and OK this is pretty rare and generally only in very specific categories) who see what they do as a vocation.

But a lot of people in a lot of jobs would rather do something they enjoyed more (art, music, floristry, crystal healing, farming, running a bunting-cupcakes boutique) or indeed something that they percieved as more socially worthwhile/less boring if they could earn the same money for the same amount of hours.

Well what do you expect from the readership of that little organ?

The readership of that little organ is anyone getting on the tube at the end of the day a bit tired who takes the proffered copy and wonders why when they start reading it. But carries on because it's usually marginally better than staring into space (ok debatable).

If the average commuter just takes a copy even though they know it's shit, then how can the average schoolchild be expected to spurn the free read?

Dittany: there is a very big difference between sex you don't want at all and are being forced/scared/bullied into having, and sex that is not particularly a turn on but which you are prepared to participate in because you don't mind obliging the person who wants sex with you/participating in the sex will get you something you want from the other person/ you're getting paid for it. Probably the most important difference between a woman who is unwillingly involved in sex work and being exploited, and a woman who has chosen to participate in sex work, is that the latter is at liberty to refuse a client if he is rude or intimidating or revolting.

Dittany, that's one woman's opinion. Other sex workers have different opinions.

Many, many women are abused by their husbands and partners. This is rarely used to justify calls for prohibiting marriage or romantic love. Buying someone's time and skills for a negotiated fee and a negotiated space of time is not buying the person whether the skills the customer buys are accountancy, lawnmowing, food service or fellation.

DIttany, why is it only the truth when it's a negative experience? Why is the opinion of a sex worker who doesn't find her work hateful and degrading not just as valid? Isn't one of the absolute key tenets of feminism that every woman is an authority on her own experience: that so many feminists insist on dismissing all sex workers as liars, victims or morons drives me nuts.
And what do we all (who work for money) use if not our bodies: the masseur's hands give pleasure, the builder uses physical strength to build the house. The sex worker's customer is not buying her vagina, mouth or anus to put in a box and take home, he is buying time and skills.

I think you are trying to put a positive spin on a very degrading practice solidgold.
The key test is would the sex worker choose to be a sex worker if she was as highly paid for something else? I suspect that if they choose it, as opposed to coerced or to feed a drug habit,they are in it for the money. They can dress it up anyway they want, to make it seem as if they are empowered women etc, but really it is for the money.
Most of them don't choose it and I really don't know how men can exploit poor women from an already abusive background.You would think they would feel pity and try and help. Sadly it is the oldest profession and will always be with us. I would have it legalised and taxed with regular medical checks and get it off the streets.

those skeleton thing drug addicts down the road from me don't look like they are having a good time or indeed any choice.
And no-one has mentioned young boys prostituting themselves for drug money. As young as 10.

AbbeyA: the vast majority of people who do any kind of work do it for the money. Many people who earn a lot of money in jobs that are physically risky, devour one's whole life or involve working for companies with an ethos they are not sure, would do something else if they could find work that paid the same hourly rate.

And no, desperate drug addicts are not 'empowered women having a good time' but as I said before, a stigmatising, punitive attitude towards prostitution and attempts to eradicate it by force do not help these people.

Money is nowhere near the top of my list for a job.

I don't think you can eradicate it which is why I would legalise it and make them pay tax. I would also get it off the streets, give them the safety of health checks and punish pimps severely.

AbbeyA: well that's you - not motivated by money. Presumably you have a reasonably wealthy partner/family and can afford to make something other than money your work priority. Other people are not the same as you and have different motivations (not just sex workers but people who take high-earning jobs that mean leaving their families for months at a time etc).
The issues round full legalisation are complex and any new laws, campaigns etc need to be set up in conjunction with sex workers other than being imposed on them. Because a badly-formed law (for instance, register as a sex worker and if you are caught selling sex when you're not registered you will go to jail for 10 years or something) risks making the lives of the most vulnerable and exploited, street workers and addicts, even worse.

Chukky, I think the station premises managers and the advertisers are the places to start, if you really want to kick up a fuss. Write a stiff letter (emphasising the availability of the paper to minors), photocopy the article and fire it off to all and sundry. Copy the letter to the journalists mentioned here, c/o their news papers.

I am not wealthy! I think job interest comes way before earning power. For example I would rather be an archaeologist than a merchant banker. There are jobs that would bore me stiff, so however much they paid I wouldn't want to do them.

I don't know all the ins and outs of legalisation but I certainly think the government should be getting high taxes off high earning sex workers.
I wouldn't punish the poor vulnerable, abused, drug addict sex worker but I would punish the men who exploit them, whether they be pimps or customers (if you can call them customers).

abbey - i think you can eradicate it - by targetting those who do the exploiting, those who benefit from the exchange of money or goods and those who live off the profits of women's exploitation.

whilst some say it is the oldest occupation - there are others who say it is the oldest oppression. agriculture is more likely the oldest occupation. is it interesting to look at what has happened with indigenous tribes where prostitution did not exist until the numbers of men brought in to work for logging contractors increased. then child abuse, prostitution and rape increased. it is not inevitable - to say that suggests that men have a right to buy women and children for their own pleasure.

also - slavery existed whereby a person was bought and their skills and time owned. did that make it right?

i do not agree with the moves to legislate it. in other countries it did not control it, provide better conditions for the women, generate income tax for the country nor keep it within manageable boundaries.

solid - I dont want to get into a divided debate but i would be interested if your friends or their friends who are currently involved have partners who are aware of what they do?

I love that-'the oldest oppression'-I shall use it in future.
I was assuming that we couldn't get rid of it, but we no longer have serfs or slavery so it should be possible.
I would start by naming and shaming those who use prostitutes.

in research with punters/ johns/ tricks etc

the biggest deterrent for them would be -
name being put on a ex offenders register
public naming / shaming - media, billboards etc
family being told
employers being told
losing assets eg cars when used for kerb crawling

monetary fines were not a big factor nor was a police warning, caution or arrest under current legislation.

chukky - if you feel strongly about this -
the Fawcett society or OBJECT may be able to give suggestions and organise a bit more of a co-ordinated approach if you bring it to their attention.

Chukkypig I would send the link to the hjournalists that have been mentioned and just tell them that you are appalled.

Again i recomend Polly Toynbee at the guradian.