privilege and prostitution

[ezinma]

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and whose right to A Fundamental Experience presumably requires them to seduce a partner using skills that cannot be withdrawn from a bank machine; and the regrettable (though now unavoidable) misuse of ‘privilege’ to refer to any old scenario where one group of people has a little bit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.

You do realise that that example you keep whining about is just in your head, don't you?

Prostitutes in countries where it is legal are more likely to be trafficked, that's ok with you, isn't it though, because they are still available for you, with no consequences for you. In punterland, everything is glorious, all women are happy hookers, and random and ill researched opinions are absolute cannon fact. No one is raped, no one is trafficked all is sunshine and buttercups.

In the real world, we know the difference.

Punter.

gilo how many have been murdered since legalisation?

the main issue re Swedish Model is inadequate exit facilities, which is the responsibility of austerity crazed Condem govt, not feminists

"Taking homes off people is not part of the Nordic model."

Yet it happens.

I agree Julia.

"gilo how many have been murdered since legalisation?"

I don't know, but I haven't heard of any.

"the main issue re Swedish Model is inadequate exit facilities"

That's because trying to enforce it is so expensive.

42 were murdered between 1990 and 2009 in one area alone in the Netherlands. Prostitution was legalised in 1988, so no doubt more have been, especially if you look further afield than a single part of Amsterdam. I'll try and get better figures later.

^"the main issue re Swedish Model is inadequate exit facilities"

That's because trying to enforce it is so expensive.^

No.... dear lord, please try and use your brain. exit facilities have nothing to do with enforcement.

I agree with him.

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

Actually it does.

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

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

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'.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

"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.

How is life is cloud cuckoo land, gilo?

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.

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.

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)

I don't think Rachel Moran is representative.