Number 10 petition to criminalise men who buy sex

[policywonk]

Sign here if, you know, you want to

dittany your modus operandi is assume worst of other posters and to get histrionic.you claim "nobody does give a shit about what it's actually like for women in prostitution"

actually that is not true,yet again you suppose about others in a pompus manner. perhaps your argumentative beligerent hectoring renders you incapeable of a balanced discourse or dialogue

come now, anyone posting simply 'no' is posturing... silly to pretend anything different.

'no, because...' is responding to the petition and to the debate. 'no' is just saying 'look at me!' and a bit puerile. lol.

tsh, yes, i guess we will have to agree to disagree. i wish you could hear some of the stories that my friend tells, though. it's not uncommon, apparently, for prostitutes to insist on their personal 'happiness' etc right up until the point that they get out, and it all comes pouring out, the abuse, the beatings, the rape etc etc. from women who i'm sure would argue side by side with you up until they finally leave. it's denial, in their cases, a coping mechanism.

and yyy of COURSE the men know. you don't go up some back close in Govan and go into a flat with a couple of big leather-jacketed Serb at the door and into a grubby room and a foreign-accented young girl sitting on the bed and think 'oh yes, here's someone studying for their phd'. but when the police come battering down the door (as they do, fairly often, in govan) afaia the johns have done nothing wrong.

in fact, many of them do that thing of 'falling in love and wanting to rescue the girl' etc etc, esp with foreigners, whereas it's their business that put them there in the first place. these girls, when they get chucked into the uncaring hands of immigration often have a special john to call, the one who promised to take them away from all this. and poof!, he disappears the minute that he's actually needed, because the whole time he just wanted to present himself as a 'good guy' because HE knew that he was doing something wrong the whole time.

do you plan to address the same comment to other posters who said no too.1st no immediately followed the op

as i said to dittany and i say to you -
please refrain from histrionics and personalising this because i said no

i read op and posted,the order of the post was random

lol, i DID just address it to everyone.

i didn't respond to each one individually because i contented myself with thinking that each person that said 'no' without further explan was just a bit of a posturing tit, tbh. but now that the subject has come up and your denials are in, i mention it. that's all.

and i straight up don't believe that you didn't read a single post on a hundreds-long thread started a full week ago before posting. lol.

no in response to an invite to sign a petition

in much the same way on aibu people invite opinion and others post

Yabu
yanbu
should we perhaps ask all those posters to refrain from that brief answer unless they write an accompanying discourse

i would say that in AIBU the person is generally interested in a straw poll, having posted 'am i being unreasonable?'. here, it was the very weedy 'sign here if, you know, you want to'.

anyway, let's get back to talking about the petition, rather than how to post on MN, i think we all get the gist.

yep,read op and responded.there is no compulsion to plough through whole thread you know

lol sm, i hear ya. now, do tell us why you won't be signing the petition...

OI AITCH are you calling me weedy?

I phrased it like that because I anticipated that it would be a bit controversial, and I thought that sort of OP would encourage more of a debate than a more aggressive OP, I suppose. (And IMO there has been a pretty good debate on this thread.)

As others have said, I was a bit surprised by those just posting 'no' - would be more interesting to know why not.

oh yes, purposefully weedy, deffo.

i'd prefer it if people had posted 'no, i support men's (and women's) right to pay for sex without sanction or stigma because... '

Good name, PollyTroll

Thanks

wimp.

Seems to me the crux of the issue is one of consent. Is it possible to consent to something when one is so suppressed? Can one make an informed decision about prostitution? For instance, the law recognizes that consent cannot be adequately formed in some situations, such as mentally ill, minors etc.

Is that what the proposal to criminalize men who buy sex is effectively saying? That those who sell sex are so desperate, but shouldn't be labelled criminals.

Personally, would say prostitution is parallel to GBH which one cannot consent to, even in the instance of willing members for S & M.

Dittany said "...and noted the irony of your passive aggressive no (not ignoring all the other passive aggressive no's on the thread) coming straight after a formerly prostituted women made a plea to outlaw the practice of men paying for sex whilst also saying that whatever she said, she would be ignored as a former "whore"."

Am I alone in finding it the tiniest bit ironic that dittany will cheerfully ignore the words of a prostitute who enjoys her job - Pye Jacobbsen - but go on and on about the words of a former prostitute who didn't, and how they're being ignored?

"For instance, the law recognizes that consent cannot be adequately formed in some situations, such as mentally ill, minors etc."

And dittany would like independent, adult women to be considered as mentally-ill, because they don't agree with her analysis of their situation. Because she knows best, of course. Where have we seen that kind of attitude before? Magdalene laundries, anyone?

With this all paid sex = rape attitude, isn't it a bit insulting to the real victims of rape, who are not just consensually fucking with a pile of twenties on the bedside table|?