Norway on course to criminalise buying sex

[sam]

Norway on course to criminalise buying sex

http://www.int.iol.co.za/
index.php?set_id=1&click_id=24&art_id=nw20070422215950681C492388

Oslo - Norway's ruling Labour Party voted to ban the purchase of sex on Sunday in an attempt to stop prostitution by targeting those who buy it rather than those who sell it, officials said.

The decision by the Labour Party's congress puts Norway on course to join its Scandinavian neighbour Sweden in adopting such a policy. Sweden introduced a similar ban in 1999.

Prostitution is allowed in Norway, although procuring it, commonly known as "pimping", is illegal. Street prostitution in the capital, Oslo, has become increasingly visible and aggressive in the past few years, provoking calls for a ban.

Labour also has support from its coalition partners, the Socialist Left and Centre parties. They hold a combined 87 of parliament's 169 seats and will also be backed by the opposition Christian People's Party, which first proposed the ban.

"A majority of parties in parliament wants a ban on buying sexual services," Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, told a news conference. "We are going to implement it."

The right-wing opposition Progress Party is opposed to the ban, as is the opposition Liberal Party. The opposition Conservative Party has taken a wait-and-see attitude.

The congress of the Labour Party, which heads the three-party centre-left government, was itself was sharply divided, with 184 of 300 delegates voting for the ban.

Proponents say banning the purchase of sex will curb prostitution without penalising the prostitutes, many of whom are poor, young foreign women often forced into the trade.

Opponents say it will only drive prostitution underground and make prostitutes even more vulnerable.

"I don't think it will help the women," Karita Bekkemellem, the Labour Party's minister for children and equality affairs, and a strong advocate of women's rights, said.

[sam]

Abby O'Reilly, a woman who considers Suicide Girls the missing link between sexist pornography and femitopian erotica, is touting the same sex industry lie that the Swedish model doesn't work that the wealthy pornstitution industries have paid to promulgate.

But will penalising the punters be a positive move for these women? Karita Bekkemellem, the Labour party’s minister for children and equality affairs as well as a strong supporter of women’s rights, believes otherwise, remarking, “I don’t think it will help the women.”

What the government is proposing to do is to punish men who attempt to buy sex on the street, but they are not additionally suggesting the implementation of social reforms and financial support to help the women who are selling sex for cash. So, where does it leave these women? Many of them have no other option than to turn to prostitution, either by being forced into the trade by a dominant force, or, since they are lacking the skills needed to get work, use the only commodity they feel they have to financially survive. Their situation will remain unchanged, and the only difference will be that they will be forced underground, making them more susceptible to abuse and danger from the men who use them. So, is this just a case of the law attempting to mask a problem that the government is unable to visibly resolve? It certainly appears that way."

It sounds like she's saying that trying to hold men accountable men for raping vulnerable women is an unworkable legal strategy because men will try harder and with more cruelty to keep raping women anyways. Some women, we'll call them sex workers, just have to learn to accept a level of rape, sexual harassment and bodily harm no other people would be expected to accept lest men be spurred to violent retaliation? The words "more susceptible to abuse and danger from the men who use them" are meaningless to someone kept in a room to be raped multiple times daily. How much worse do prostituted women's lives have to get before the fear of inflamed male violence, which somehow doesn't result in feminists closing Planned Parenthood's doors when it's threatened, can be overcome for the sake of prostituted women?

Criminals of all kinds run like cockroaches from a light shining on their activities but what feminist would suggest that since anti-feminist backlash happens every time we try to move forward for women's rights that we should stop trying? Should non-prostituted rape victims stop reporting their rapes because doing so can bring more harm to them than not prosecuting? If a father is known to be raping his daughter do we stand by and do nothing because of the fear he will kidnap and possibly murder her if someone tries to intervene for the girl's sake?

There is no evidence prostitution has gone underground in Sweden. Prostitution is not like weapons trafficking; it is not done in secret between sophisticated criminal networks who can operate entirely out of public view. Prostitution needs male customers -a lot of them- and those men don't have to learn the superduper secret handshake to get into brothels, they just dial up numbers found in phone books, phone booths, Craig's List, and free weekly newspapers. The secret passoword is known by all men to be "$$$$".

It pisses me off that a feminist would try to derail attempts to constrain the massive increase in men demanding prostitutes, lapdancers and strippers with the excuse that as bad as being repeatedly raped might be, any attempts to get rapists off women's backs will be met with men's violent backlash so we should leave the rapists alone and try to get the women to see their sexual abuse in a positively sexy light.

Jessica Valenti made this same terrorist-capitulating error when she suggested that Texas requiring strippers have permits would only make stalking easier for the violent, misogynist rapists she has never expressed a problem with allowing to patronize strip clubs. The fact that men in strip clubs are already abusing strippers daily and in terrible, sexually abusive ways is seemingly acceptable just so long as men don't abuse them any worse than they already do. Leaving those thousands of young women to their oppressive, abusive workplace environments that would have Jessica fuming if they happened to non-prostituted woman is unacceptable to me.

I'm sick of the line that feminists trying to stop the criminally organized, systematic rapes of prostituted women will hurt women more than pimps and tricks hurt women.

To make me happy, Abby could have said, "So c'mon Norway and step up all the way with your proposed program by adequately funding drug addiction and exit programs, housing and job training services." Instead she towed the pimpographer line about everyone just backing off the idea that men should be held accountable.

If you have something to say to Abby please do so here http://www.thefword.org.uk
/contact/response?goback=http://www.thefword.org.uk/

[sam]

my letter

Not for publication, for Abby.

This is in regards to your criticism of Norway possibly adopting the Swedish model of focusing on men's demands for prostituted women.

It sounds like you're saying that holding men accountable for paying to sexually abuse vulnerable women is an unworkable legal strategy because men will try harder and with more cruelty to keep raping women anyways. The words "more susceptible to abuse and danger from the men who use them" are meaningless to someone kept in a room to be raped multiple times daily. How much worse do prostituted women's lives have to get before the fear of inflamed male violence that somehow doesn't result in feminists calling to close Planned Parenthood's doors is overcome for the sake of prostituted women?

Criminals of all kinds run like cockroaches from a light shining on their activities but what feminist would suggest that since anti-feminist backlash happens everytime we try to move forward for women's rights that we should stop trying to move forward? If a father is known to be raping his daughter do we stand by and do nothing because of the fear he will kidnap and possibly murder her if someone tries to intervene for the girl's sake?

Despite much billion-dollar sex industry spin, there is no actual evidence prostitution has gone underground in Sweden. Prostitution is not like military weapons trafficking; it is not done in secret wholly between sophisticated criminal networks who can operate entirely out of public view. Prostitution needs male customers -a lot of them- and those men don't have to learn the superduper secret handshake to get into brothels, they just dial up numbers found in phone books, phone booths, Craig's List, and free weekly newspapers.

Why, upon learning of Norway's plans, couldn't you have said something to the effect of, "So c'mon Norway, and step up all the way with your proposed program by adequately funding drug addiction and exit programs, housing and job training services because women's lives depend on it" instead of implying that men can't be made to stop their predatory sexual behaviors? I wish I didn't just hear commerical sex industry profiteer spin when I read your words but I know the source of the "prostitution will go underground and it will be radical feminist's fault men hurt whores more" and it is neither fact-based on any reasearch I've seen nor feminist-based in the underpinning reasoning.

[sam]

For those wanting a shorter version of Abby's reply: "Boys will be boys."

Dear Sam,
Thank you for your response to my blog article titled ‘Norway to make
buying sex illegal.’ I found your comments interesting, as I did your
website, although there are a few salient points in your message that I
would like to address as a means of response.

Firstly, in answer to your opening statement that I am claiming this would
be an “unworkable legal strategy,” I would have to say that yes, this is
what the general premise of my commentary was. I do not profess to be an
expert on the subject, and I am not extremely knowledgeable about the
minutiae of laws surrounding prostitution, but what I do know is that
procuring sex for cash has a strong historical precedent, and will never
be completely eradicated. There will always be prostitutes and a demand
for sex, and making the purchasing of a woman’s body illegal will not
change this. Personally, I do not agree that prostitution is rape, which
is the way you refer to the practice throughout your message. Yes, very
often women are forced to sell their bodies owing to a their inability to
support themselves in any other way, but there are a few who choose to
join escort agencies and the likes (Bell du Jour, for example) as the
money they can earn far exceeds what they would get working menial jobs.

I think it’s idealistic to assume that those men who are obviously morally
deficit in the first place to even consider using women in the most
degrading way in return for cash will be deterred from continuing to do so
by an amendment to the law. Traditionally the law has been seen in many
instances as something to overcome as opposed to something to adhere to.
Prohibition in America in the early twentieth-century did not discourage
people from drinking. Similarly it’s illegal to drive to fast, but people
still do it.

Of course, the latter is not of the same gravity as what we are talking
about, but it illustrates my point that people will disregard the law when
it suits them. Especially since the attitude towards prostitution varies
throughout the world. Are there not some parts of Europe (Germany and
Amsterdam I believe) where prostitution has been legalised, and women are
privilege to the same regulations concerning work as women in more
traditional roles? Surely this is a better alternative than trying to
implement something that will not work anyway. Because it won’t, and in
the same way as you remark my opinion has not factual backing, I am yet to
see any empirical evidence that this will work otherwise. At least women
in this judicial system are receiving payment for what they do, because in
all likelihood if men in Norway are to face prosecution for using
prostitutes, they WILL begin to rape women. After all, they will be
receiving their sexual gratification regardless, and if they don’t pay
then they can’t be prosecuted, since technically they’ve not used a
prostitute, but rather had sex with a ‘consenting’ adult. This is wrong,
yes, but the poor statistics surrounding rape cases, and the low level of
men who are actually found guilt in a court of law means that the majority
will get a way with it. The ignorance and stigmatisation surrounding
prostitution means that a woman who is known to sell sex for cash is
likely to have little credibility in a court of law, and so where from
there?

You imply that this attitude is defeatist, that to deny this move would be
a step backward for women’s rights, but I would argue that the opposite is
the case. That to illegalise buying sex will worsen the lives of
prostituted women. It is only when something is legalised that it can be
policed. Take the Ipswich murders last year, for example. Had there been a
legal system in order, and regulations surrounding prostitution, would
these women have been saved from murder? If the police had kept a log of
the women on the street, and worked to protect them, instead of
prostitutes feeling they have to exist in the shadows, hidden from a legal
system that regards them as criminals, then would the outcome had been
different? Quite possibly, yes.

You draw the following analogy, that “If a father is known to be raping
his daughter do we stand by and do nothing because of the fear he will
kidnap and possibly murder her if someone tries to intervene for the
girl's sake?” But this analogy does not work for the following reasons.
Firstly, it is unlikely that the young girl would be consenting to sex
with her father. Prostitutes consent to sex for cash, whether being forced
to owing to financial circumstances or not. Many appropriate this as their
profession. A young girl being raped by her father does not. This is also
inc*st; something that is considered universally (especially in the
western world) to be immoral and a crime. As I said before, varying laws
outlining prostitution means that it fluctuates between being something
that is regarded as a ‘service’ (however wrong it may be) and a crime.
What you have outlined is an extreme case, something that would shock and
abhor, and although prostitution should do this, the concept of
prostitution and the women who do this have long been accepted as being a
marginal niche of society, whereas paedophiles and those conducting
inc*stuous relationships are not.

You remark of the buying of sex that “it is not done in secret wholly
between sophisticated criminal networks who can operate entirely out of
public view.” But, apart from the reference to sophistication, I would say
that it is. There are no TV advertisements EXPLICITLY offering sex, and we
don’t get leaflets through the door. Prostitutes exist, we know men use
them, the simple principle of supply and demand confirms this, but it’s
not something spoken about overtly. Men do not speak at length about their
experiences with women they have paid for sex in ordinary social
circumstance; it’s considered transgressive behaviour, something
‘secretive,’ and shameful. The man who uses a prostitute is stereotyped as
affluent, morally flawed and someone who abuses power, and there are not
many who would admit to possessing these personal attributes. And as long
as prostitutes are not spoken about, or acknowledged in mainstream
conversation then for the majority they may as well not exist, or rather
continue to be constructed as the mythical femme-fatale stereotype who
allure middle-class men away from their wives with the promise of erotic
delights, when the reality is considerably less glamorous. At least by
legalising it, society is accepting a responsibility for these women, and
identifying that they are in need of regulations to ensure they are not
abused, since, after all, is in not the failings of society in the first
place that have pushed them into pursuing this line of ‘work?’

I maintain that there will still be male customers, and nothing to stop
them from still using the same means as you mentioned, Craig’s List,
adverts, phone numbers…etc to get what they want, the only difference will
be is that it will become more discrete. But perhaps this is the desired
affect; at least if it’s not happening overtly we can pretend it’s not
happening at all, remain ignorant? And then when a young girl is murdered
by a man for asking for payment for her services, we can all act shocked
and pretend that we didn’t know there was this clandestine world of
prostitution in operation, and so shirk our duty of care? This is what
will happen if it is made illegal, it’s human nature to deny knowledge of
that we know to be wrong and did nothing about, the basic principle of
self-preservation, and it’s not right the most vulnerable should be
victims of a judicial system seemingly aiming to ‘protect them,’ as well
as of their own personal circumstances.

And finally, you remarked in your closing statement, why could I not have
said, "’So c'mon Norway, and step up all the way with your proposed
program by adequately funding drug addiction and exit programs, housing
and job training services because women's lives depend on it’" instead of
implying that men can't be made to stop their predatory sexual behaviours
so it's a waste trying?” but I DID remark in my blog that if Norway is
proposing to illegalise the buying of sex, they need to introduce other
initiatives to support and allow women to make money in other ways. I will
quote the section from my article here; “What the government is proposing
to do is to punish men who attempt to buy sex on the street, but they are
not additionally suggesting the implementation of social reforms and
financial support to help the women who are selling sex for cash.” In a
perect world this law could be introduced, men would stop curb-crawling,
and women would be provided with other means of supporting themselves, but
we do not live in a perfect world. It’s fine for us to stand back and
speculate about the rights and wrongs of this from an objective position,
but why should young girls and women, who already comprise one of the most
vulnerable and disadvantaged facets of society, be futher burdened and
affected by the introduction of a law professing to forward ‘women’s
rights?’

Obviously, I could not speak in length about these issues in the blog, as
it’s designed so as to provide snippets of information and commentary, but
I hope this provides an insight into the internal machinations behind my
lack of support for Norway’s proposed change to the law. I don’t think
that it was “commercial sex industry profiteer spin” as you so remarked in
your comments, but rather a more realistic perception of what will happen
should this law come to pass. No, you are right, there is no research as
far as I know about this, but what I will say is that the validity of any
empirical data collected in relation to this would be questionable.
Accurate evidence would require the introduction of some sort of
regulations and certainty that those questioned are answering honestly,
which is dubious. I can’t imagine many ‘punters’ being particularly
willing to participate.

And with regards to feminist theory “underpinning” any thoughts, are you
familiar with Ariel Levy’s book ‘Female Chauvinist Pigs’? Although Levy is
not a proponent of the belief, there is a facet of women who find it
empowering to flaunt their bodies, claiming that it is the men who watch
them or buy into the porn industry who are being exploited owing to their
failure to ignore their base sexual instincts. Could it not be possible
that some prostitutes hold a similar belief? Kate Holden, in her
autobiographical book ‘In My Skin,’ was a prostitute for ten years, a
profession she fell into to fund her heroin addiction. Holden did then,
and continues to, self-define as a ‘feminist’ holding the belief that she
was able to fully explore her sexuality and femininity through her
prostitution. Yes, she emotionally disassociated herself from her work,
but she enjoyed the sense of solidarity and camaraderie she experienced,
working in a secure brothel, where regulations imposed by the manager
meant that the women were not vulnerable to rape or physical attack by the
men who used their services. Holden also remarks how there was a
time-limit placed on each encounter, and in this way what she did, did
become her profession, as it was to some extent policed. If it’s going to
happen, as it will, why not make it easier for the women who feel they
have to do it, rather than trying to make some big ‘supposedly’ feminist
statement about women’s rights?

Please excuse the length of this e-mail, but I did want to clarify what I
was saying, and demonstrate that there was a thought process in action
behind it.

All the best wishes,
Abby

[sam]

Dear Abby,

"I do not profess to be an expert on the subject, and I am not extremely knowledgeable about the minutiae of laws surrounding prostitution"

It would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the laws you're calling unworkable before passing judgment on their effectiveness. You should especially educate yourself about the many successes of Sweden’s approach to prostitution compared to the many failures of legalization and decriminalization. The Netherlands has around twice as many inhabitants as Sweden but the scale of prostitution is ten times Sweden’s. A good summary can be read here: http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=2035

“procuring sex for cash has a strong historical precedent, and will never be completely eradicated.”

The same is true for all crimes. Has a law ever completely eradicated any particular type of power abuse? Child pornography is a 3 billion dollar a year industry in the United States alone.

However, there is nothing that supports your assertion that the number of men who pay for sex has remained static over the years or is not highly subject to regional and national differences. In Britain, the number of men paying for sex nearly doubled from 5.6% in 1995 to 9% in 2005, but in Thailand 80% of men say they have paid for sex. If the number of British men using prostitutes can double in ten years then it can also half in ten years because what goes up can go down.

Personally, I do not agree that prostitution is rape, which is the way you refer to the practice throughout your message.

Most prostituted women, men and transgendereds disagree with you that the experience of prostituting is dissimilar to the experience of rape and since almost all prostitutes have been raped either children and/or in prostitution I’d say they’ve got a good grip on what rape feels like when comparing it to their prostitution. 90% of prostitutes say they want out of prostitution immediately. One 5-country study of 475 prostitutes found 92% said they wanted out, and a 9-country study of 854 prostitutes found 89% wanted out immediately.

“there are a few who choose to
join escort agencies and the likes (Bell du Jour, for example)”

Why put the capitalist rights of a very few privileged women to make more money (all your examples are of white, middle class women with book deals) above the rights of the much more numerous prostituted, trafficked, enslaved women and girls (the average age of entry into prostitution is 13) to not be raped repeatedly every day, day after day? Surely the right to be free from rape outweighs a contended, healthy and happy woman’s right to profit from a system of gender, race, and nationality exploitation.

In the 50's and 60's some black business owners organized against desegregation knowing once black people could freely choose to shop and eat at white-owned businesses they would no longer be forced to buy from black-owned businesses and profits would drop. They lost their fight to keep a personally profitable result of social inequality intact and racial equality has moved ahead because of it. The sexual capitalists will ultimately lose their fight to hold back progress in prostituted women's sexual autonomy.

I think it’s idealistic to assume that those men who are obviously morally deficit in the first place to even consider using women in the most degrading way in return for cash will be deterred from continuing to do so by an amendment to the law.

I agree that laws are not enough. We already have laws against rape, kidnapping and murder. However, Sweden’s experience backs up what many studies have found to be the most effective deterrents for predatory men, and it is not legal statutes but the jail time, fines, and public exposure as a man who pays for sex gets under those statutes. One study confirming that prostituting men’s demands are very influenced by the threat of punishment:

A Large Specific Deterrent Effect of Arrest for Patronizing a Prostitute
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArt ... ne.0000060

“Are there not some parts of Europe (Germany and
Amsterdam I believe) where prostitution has been legalised, and women are privileged to the same regulations concerning work as women in more traditional roles?

You are incorrect about that. It is a common misconception.

It is estimated 80-90% of prostitutes in The Netherlands are not Dutch. After the Netherlands legalized the sex industry it grew overall by 25% and trafficking to the Netherlands increased to meet increased men’s demands. Wherever prostitution is legalized child prostitution has increased and street prostitution remained as dangerous and organized-crime controlled as ever because pimps lose nothing by keeping “their girls” out of brothels and gain more money from men willing to pay for condomless, violent, underaged sex.

It is Amsterdam, not Stockholm, that has shut down red light districts and window brothels because they multiplied underground prostitution and produced a spike in gang activity and prostituted slavery via trafficking to meet men's increased, legitimized demands for sex on command.

“I am yet to see any empirical evidence that this will work otherwise.”

The Netherlands has around twice as many inhabitants as Sweden but the scale of prostitution is ten times Sweden’s. Trafficking into Sweden has reduced dramatically, street prostitution is down with no evidence of an unusual increase in off-street prostitution, and many prostituted women, some estimates put it at 60% of Sweden’s prostitutes, have come forward to take advantage of social service exit and healthcare programs. There is more where that came from.

At least women in this judicial system are receiving payment for what they do, because in all likelihood if men in Norway are to face prosecution for using prostitutes, they WILL begin to rape women.

How would you react if a man said to you that he wanted to pay you $100 for sex and if you refused he would rape you anyway? Would you say, “Well okay, since you put it that way, let’s get it on”? That is no kind of consent to prostitution.

After all, they will be receiving their sexual gratification regardless

Just as feminists have argued with regards to rape, prostitution is minimally about sex and more about power abuses. Hugh Grant could have 10 free blowjobs every day by beautiful women because he’s handsome, rich and a celebrity, but he didn’t even pay for a high-priced call girl, he desired a drug-addicted street prostitute to suck his dick. Power, not sexual gratification.

and if they don’t pay then they can’t be prosecuted, since technically they’ve not used a prostitute, but rather had sex with a ‘consenting’ adult.

You’re very wrong about this. If during a rape trial the man says the woman was a prostitute he paid, his chances of getting convicted GO DOWN, not up as you imply the evidence of money would bring. This is why men often rape and then say it was consented to as sexual transaction- because it works to get them off the rape charges. Currently the woman being branded a whore is considered more detestable than a man using economic coercion to prey upon vulnerable women. The Swedish model works against the stigma prostitutes face because it reinforces that the power difference between punters and prostitutes makes the man culpable and the woman a victim of impoverished circumstances. Less blame on women, more on men is the idea.

The more you falsely insist there are large numbers of happy women who willingly prostitute, the more you reinforce the common “she’s a ho who wanted it” defense rapists are using to great effect. It also reinforces golddigger stereotypes about women using sex and lies to get money from ‘innocent’ men, exactly what rapists claim has happened to them by the women they rape and then call lying whores who wanted the ‘sex’.

If the police had kept a log of the women on the street, and worked to protect them…

If police were tracking and logging the men who use prostitutes it would go much further in reducing violence against them since they would lose the anonymity that benefits punters even in places where it is legal.

The number of illegal brothels in the Netherlands has increased dramatically since prostitution was legalised.
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currenta ... ed061031mc

Prostitutes consent to sex for cash, whether being forced to owing to financial circumstances or not.

Again I ask to think how you would respond to the offer of the would-rape-you-anyway punter above. That’s not “consenting” to sex, that’s giving in to a threat, and sex procured by coercion or threat is called rape.

Many appropriate this as their profession.

I have never seen evidence of this claim, and believe me I have looked. I offer to donate $100 to the sex worker charity of your choice if you can show me any proof that “many appropriate this as their profession.” Most emphatically do not.

In the USA, 56% of prostituted persons don't want prostitution legalized as a job.
South Africa: 62%
Thailand: 72%
Turkey: 96%
Zambia: 92%
Canada: 68%
Colombia: 80%
Mexico: 49%

59% of German prostitutes interviewed did not think their country’s legalization of prostitution has made them safer from rape and physical assault.

the concept of prostitution and the women who do this have long been accepted as being a marginal niche of society, whereas paedophiles and those conducting inc*stuous relationships are not.

Did you know that the Netherlands recently approved a political party, The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party, whose goal is to lower the age of consent to 12, legalize child pornography and sex with animals? "A ban just makes children curious,"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/outcry ... 92681.html

The point is that just because something is socially or politically accepted does not make it good for women. Slavery, segregation, lack of women’s suffrage, and a host of other civil right abuses were all considered normal until people challenged what normal means and redefined it. I would like you to be a part of making that change instead of digging your heels in to support a thousand year old legacy of men controlling women’s sexuality with their economic and social power over women.

You remark of the buying of sex that “it is not done in secret wholly between sophisticated criminal networks who can operate entirely out of public view.” But, apart from the reference to sophistication, I would say that it is. There are no TV advertisements EXPLICITLY offering sex, and we don’t get leaflets through the door.

I think this is a disingenuous argument considering that phone books and the most popular print and internet media contains entire pornstitution sections and websites. There are no tv advertisements offering cigarettes either but that doesn’t mean people don’t know where to get cigarettes. There is no feminism section in the Daily Sport like there is a prostitute-finding section.

The man who uses a prostitute is stereotyped as
affluent, morally flawed and someone who abuses power, and there are not many who would admit to possessing these personal attributes. And as long as prostitutes are not spoken about, or acknowledged in mainstream conversation then for the majority they may as well not exist

You switched subjects midstream.

First you start out saying that men don’t openly speak of their prostitution use, which is true but becoming less so as men are emboldened to feel good about themselves, like good feminists ‘helping’ women even, when they choose to prostitute.

Then you switched that to “prostitutes” not being spoken about even though you list several books among many of happy hookers telling their sexy if sometimes melancholy tales and there are entire tv programs like “The Girls Next Door” and “Cathouse” showing the less than 10% of prostituted women who do not say they want out of prostitution immediately.

the mythical femme-fatale stereotype who allure middle-class men away from their wives with the promise of erotic delights, when the reality is considerably less glamorous.

Yet that is the stereotype Belle du Jour and Kate Holden give support to among their readers. 60% of johns are married men and 85% have long term sex partners. Tossing in one or two unsavory anecdotes to stories mostly meant to sexually titillate and legitimize men’s rights to demand sex from women anytime does nothing to demolish that stereotype. In fact, as with rape trials, legitimized prostitution has only made wives and girlfriends blame prostituted women more for ‘messing with’ their men than they blame the man for seeking the prostitute out for paid sex. When has the legitimacy of being a wife ever stopped men from raping, punching and murdering women as you seem to think legitimacy will stop men from doing these things to prostitutes? Accounts of wives being raped by husbands are taken less serious than stranger rapes and accounts of prostitutes being raped by johns are the same.

Prostituted women have been focused on whole lotsa bunches. Think of how pornography broken down means “writings on whores” but there’s no common word for writings about wives or mothers (wifography, materography) or writings about any other female-dominated work (secretarography, nurseography, midwifeography, etc.) We’ve got oodles of pornography and we’re long overdue for serious contributions to johnography.

it’s human nature to deny knowledge of that we know to be wrong and did nothing about

Sweden has not swept prostitution under the rug but dragged it out into the open in a way no other country has done, looking at it from how prostituted women see it ((harmful, humiliating, violent) instead of how men experience it (harmless, entertaining, pleasurable).

but I DID remark in my blog that if Norway is proposing to illegalise the buying of sex, they need to introduce other initiatives to support and allow women to make money in other ways. I will quote the section from my article here; “What the government is proposing to do is to punish men who attempt to buy sex on the street, but they are not additionally suggesting the implementation of social reforms and financial support to help the women who are selling sex for cash.”

I’m sorry but I really do not believe the statement of fact you wrote implies that you would support implementing social reforms. Your opinion is left out entirely until later when you call the whole premise of telling men to stop paying for sex unfeasible. If men having as many prostitutes, strippers and pornography as they can afford was a workable rape reduction strategy then why are prostitutes the most raped women in the world? According to your theory, prostitutes shouldn't be raped when they consent to sex for money and yet men feel entitled to rape prostitutes more than they rape anyone else. How do you reconcile that with your belief that giving men the hookers they want will make them rape hookers less?

“why should young girls and women, who already comprise one of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged facets of society, be futher burdened and affected by the introduction of a law professing to forward ‘women’s rights?’

Because 90% of prostituted people say they want out of prostitution immediately when asked “What do you need?” by researchers in 9 countries. As comments about the research into john behavior states, prostituted women overwhelmingly call themselves what men call them, whores and hoes. The term “sex worker” is a top-down phrase invented by pornography spokespersons and not a grassroots, bottom-up term prostituted women use themselves.

Why do you think threats of increased violence should give men whatever they want when it comes to prostitution but not to abortion rights? I believe threats to rape women more if men's whores are denied to them is an inexcusable terrorism.

“the validity of any empirical data collected in relation to this would be questionable.”

All research is questionable, but when EVERY piece of research done on prostitution over the past century shows the same conclusion- women desperately don’t want to be prostituted but aren’t free to choose otherwise- that really says something.

“If it’s going to happen, as it will, why not make it easier for the women”

You mean if rape is inevitable learn to lie back and get something good out of it, like money? I reject caving in to men's terrorist threats to hurt women more if society doesn't back the fuck off and let them do as they wish to prostitues.

who feel they have to do it, rather than trying to make some big ‘supposedly’ feminist statement about women’s rights?

It is prostituted women themselves who say they want out of prostitution. Upwards of 90% of them say it while I think you would find it very hard to accurately say 90% of feminists want the Swedish model implemented. Have you read Bust, Bitch, Venus, Scarlet, Alternet, Feministing, Pandagon, etc? Lots more of them pro-john feminists than Twisty Fasters, so please don’t tell me the idea that most prostituted women want out of prostitution and not better whoring conditions comes from feminists and not prostitutes.

Carol Leigh, pro-sex worker Scarlot Harlot who speaks in all the progressive papers about legalizing prostitution, admitted in a 2004 debate in San Francisco that “95% of my friends want out of prostitution.” To argue that there’s some large contingent of radical feminists imposing their will on prostituted women is ridiculous.

And please never, ever forget that the average age of entry into prostitution is 13-years-old when defending hooking as a legitimate career choice. If a 13-year-old turns 18 after five years she does not suddenly make an adult decision to prostitute; that decision has already been made for her by men.

It’s so easy to forget prostitution is a leisure activity for men. If men playing poker spread as much slavery, AIDS, child rape, and murder as men playing john no one would try to defend poker’s right to exist despite the devastation it leaves in its path. I cannot agree that the life-ruining global human rights violations perpetrated against tens of millions of women and children are acceptable costs to provide a form of men’s entertainment. Women’s bodily integrity, health and lives are worth more than a few moments of dicksticking amusement for men.

In short, I reject your "boys will be boys" reasoning for not listening to the 90% of prostituted people around the world who say they want your help getting out of prostitution and not legalization or normalization of prostitution as a job. 100% of 854 prostitutes said they did not want anyone they loved to have to prostitute. Honor them by helping to make a world where the people they love never have to prostitute because men have been forced to decrease their predations on poor people.

http://www.prostitutionresearch.com

Sam

[sunnysmiles]

[Lost Clown]

*sigh*

I wish I was as good with words as you are.

[KatetheGreat]

this is wicked.

Sometimes a letter with that great a level of misinformation seems like an overwhelming task to even begin refuting.

But you always do it, and do it well.

Congrats

[deedle]

Seriously impressed here

[delphyne]

Sam, as always brilliant. You also deserve congratulations for your patience. I had to give up half way through that letter.

[sam]

Abby did a nice job reporting on the DC prostituter scandal.

http://www.thefword.org.
uk/blog/

Suited men in Washington are waiting with bated breath for the outcome of the pending trial of the so-called ‘DC Madam,’ according to a report by the Turkish Press.

Deborah Jean Palfrey stands accused of operating a prostitution service in Washington for 13 years until her retirement in 2006. Claiming to having had a clientele of thousands of men, the US capital is allegedly anticipating the exposure of powerful men who availed themselves of this call-girl service, with a senior state department official poised as the first ready fall.

Palfrey denies the allegations claiming that her company, Pamela Martin and Associates, was nothing more than a:

“High-end adult fantasy firm which offered legal sexual and erotic services across the spectrum of adult sexual behaviour and did so without incident during its 13 year tenure.”

So, essentially, Palfrey’s firm was an escort agency, probably providing all the services we have come to expect from their clandestine operations, whether or not the higher management are willing to admit that essentially they are ‘pimping out’ women. With these women allegedly charging $275 an hour for a 90 minute session, Palfrey’s organisation catered for a high-earning clientele of professional men, something she is not afraid to expose if necessary. She has already made it known that she has kept records of the phone numbers of thousands of men who used her service, which would embarrass a number of US high-fliers should it be made public.

This has already had a knock-on affect in Washington, with the recent announcement that Randall Tobias (the head of the US Agency for International Development (USAID)), will be resigning for a number of undisclosed personal reasons. However, ABC News claims that Tobias is standing down having been contacted about the Palfrey case, since he apparently contacted her number. His links to a firm prostituting women means that he can no longer legitimately hold a position as a respected member of the community, since exploiting women for sexual gratification is hardly a quality conducive to encouraging international development, is it?

Concerns have been multiplying rapidly owing to Palfrey’s first naming of a client on her website, where she has posted a court document from April 12 in which she claims that Harlan Ullman, a US Naval Commander, had used her services. So male professionals occupying the higher, most influential, echelons of society are exploiting women for personal sexual gratification? So, what’s new? Men with money often think they have the right to purchase what they want, be that designer clothing, expensive houses, fast cars, and young, nubile women. For many years, one unspoken facet of the life of the male city professional, has been the speculation about his involvement in a clandestine world of sexual debauchery and exploitation, and as long as money is considered the true indicator of one’s success it will unfortunately continue to happen. They work hard and the play hard, although the exposure threatened by Palfrey will show that the morality many professionals claim to possess is nothing more than personal propaganda.

What’s significant about this story, as it was with the Ipswich murders, is the reference to the women involved as prostitutes or call-girls, rather than as women. Does the use of a distinct nomenclature to define the selling of one’s body for sex somehow lessen the significance of female exploitation and use by men? No, it doesn’t, and the media should begin to demonstrate this through their reporting.

posted by Abby O'Reilly at 2:55 PM

[msjared]

sam, you are really and truly amazing, brilliant, witty, just and patient. i thank you so much for all you do and for educating me and others every single day!

[sam]

boost for purposes related to the current conversation at viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3079

[bluecoat28]

sam-- you're wonderful!

[MaggieH]

Yeah, thanks Sam!

[oneangrygirl]

i think the proper term is "smackdown."

but i'm not up on the lingo

[hologirl2]

I cannot believe she brought up Belle de Jour. WTF? As a film studies major, this was quite eye rolling to me. Belle de Jour as a "socialist realism" attempt at depicting of prostitution?! Huh