Corbyn - "I'm in favour of decriminalising the sex industry"

[IndominusRex]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/04/jeremy-corbyn-decriminalise-sex-industry-prostitution?CMP=share_btn_tw

Not a huge shock but still troubling to see him say it.

There are some women on the labour frontbenches I quite admire too, he's put them there.

His treatment of Maria Eagle has been appalling. She is far superior to him as a parliamentarian yet he made a policy decision on her portfolio without discussing or even telling her. He then compounded it by appointing that twerp Livingstone to a defence role leaving her to find out about it via social media. Imagine what would be said if Cameron treated one of his best female ministers that way.

And that's aside from the fact, as someone else said "he didn't put her there"
Her abilities (unlike Corbyn or McDonnell) landed her the job.

"Just saying that someone with a differing opinion is wrong isn't really helpful."

What a strange thing to say.

Palmer and I think decriminalisation is wrong and the Nordic model is right. Those who disagree with us say we are wrong.

If we don't use the word wrong, what word would you like us to use, mr Iliad? Un-right?

After the whole woman only train carriage thing I would like to see what he actually said and in what context.

I'm saddened but not surprised, sadly.

The idea that it is 'civilised' to view human beings as commodities, to view someone's consent as a commodity to be purchased, is simply wrong.

I do not believe that prostituted women, children and men should be criminalised. But the buyers and those who profit from others bring prostitutes should. They are participating in the worst kind of exploitation and subjugation.

*other being prostituted

Palmerviolet, some would say you're wrong for telling women what they can do with their own bodies.

I'm not telling women what they can do with their own bodies, I'm telling men they have no right to exploit women for their sexual and misogynist gratification.

Nice try though, 2/10 for trying to make yet another discussion about men buying consent about women choosing to do it. But at the end of the day, I couldn't give even the smallest shit about whether men like you get to stick your dicks into women who, if you weren't giving them money, wouldn't consent to it.

The people who tell women what to do with their bodies are the men who buy consent.

Firstly Palmer, I'm married, but well done on the cheap personal insult.
Secondly, I'm just taking issue with the posters who seem to believe their opinion is fact. 2 pages in and we already have posters calling feminists with a different opinion misogynists.

Yes, the Nordic model sounds better than what we have now, but there is an argument that legalisation, whilst not ideal, could help protect women on a practical level. You may not agree, but it's an opinion that a number of sex workers and feminists have.

I don't think being married stops men from using prostitutes does it...?

The majority of men who pay to (ab)use prostituted women are married.

Not all opinions are created equally. There's a world's worth of strong evidence against permitting men access to an unlimited supply of 'comfort women' whose reproductive organs and digestive orifices he can rent by the hour.

Barefoot - how about 'I don't agree'?

I'm not arguing for legalisation, I'm arguing against expressing an opinion on a complex issue as objective fact.

Firstly Palmer, I'm married, but well done on the cheap personal insult.

So are a large number of punters. Interesting that you think talking about other men being a john is insulting, yet you are arguing for johns.

Secondly, I'm just taking issue with the posters who seem to believe their opinion is fact. 2 pages in and we already have posters calling feminists with a different opinion misogynists.

My opinion is based on fact. And I'm not suggesting that feminists with a different position are misogynists, I'm saying that women who believe in decrim are.

HTH

Some married men use prostitutes, I don't.

Devil's advocate: is renting a female singer's vocal cords wrong? is renting a masseur's hands wrong? or is it just the vagina which makes it wrong? And if so, why is sex the act which makes something immoral? ducks for cover

Are feminists who believe in decriminalisation misogynists?

Palmerviolet, some would say you're wrong for telling women what they can do with their own bodies

I'm not telling women what they can do with their own bodies, I'm telling men they have no right to exploit women for their sexual and misogynist gratification

Telling women they can legally sell sex but telling punters they may not legally purchase sex iseffectively telling women they may not do a certain act with their own bodies.

I don't have an issue with that. The discussion about surrogacy, organ and blood donation considered this. I don't have a problem with society deciding there are acts which are inherently damaging to society as a whole and they will not be permitted. Prostitution is degrading and dehumanising to all concerned.
.

"ducks for cover"

Please stop this childishness.

When men around the world stop brutalizing and murdering prostituted women in horrific numbers, then I might change my opinion that men should not be allowed to have the hookers they hate so very much.

As things stand, non-prostituted women who sing songs (Kesha) are raped and denied justice because we live in a world saturated with prostitution and men like you who think a woman being coerced and extorted into unwanted rape (the definition of rape) is more akin to misdemeanor shoplifting than criminal terrorism.

whoops, that should be "coerced and extorted into unwanted sex = rape"

And I'm not suggesting that feminists with a different position are misogynists, I'm saying that women who believe in decrim are

I'm not clear what you are saying here - do you mean feminists, or rather women who call themselves feminists but support legalisation are not feminists, regardless of what they call themselves?

Oh for goodness sake - is sex for money seriously being compared to paying a singer on this thread?

Listening to someone's voice does not compromise their bodily integrity, it is not invasive - sex is. Buying sex as I see it is about sexual release for the purchaser; listening to a song is an appreciation of art. You don't then deposit bodily fluids inside the singer.

What a bizarre comparison.

There are also no laws requiring singing to only be done with full consent.

If a music teacher makes a child sing when they really don't want to, they aren't considered to be child abusers.

Mr Iliad, do you honestly think that those on the other side just say "I don't agree"?

I think our carpet should be blue, DH thinks it should be grey. On that issue that causes no harm to anyone, I'm happy to say, "we disagree"

What if you think we should go back to sending children up chimneys? Revert to rape being legal in marriage? Cut maternity pay in half?

Do i say "I disagree"? No, I say you are wrong.

This is a side road.

Telling women they can legally sell sex but telling punters they may not legally purchase sex iseffectively telling women they may not do a certain act with their own bodies.

This is spot on, and also acknowledges the truth which is that actually a number of women choose to be prostitutes. They come on here now and again saying it's all dandy. Not all prostitutes are victims, but saying that is no doubt unfeminist as well.

At the point you first said this, mr Iliad:
"2 pages in and we already have posters calling feminists with a different opinion misogynists. "

Which posters had said that? Palmer said something about men exploiting women for misoyginst gratification.

Goddess, but this is tiresome.

One person has said it. It's an unusual variation on the usual theme that all of us who offer our services and the clients who pay for them are no different from prostitutes and punters.

Usually to prove the point a poster will pick a random selection from at one extreme services requiring cerebral apptitude and attracting high social status and high rewards (e.g what I do) to, in the poster's opinion, low status and low reward jobs (e.g my cleaner)

I'm never sure if posters really believe there is no difference between a solicitor or a joiner or a cleaner or a plumber and a prostitute or if they are just ssying it to be provoking.

Telling women they can legally sell sex but telling punters they may not legally purchase sex iseffectively telling women they may not do a certain act with their own bodies

I said that but taken out of context it looks as if I support legalisation. I don't.