Murder rates for sex workers against average murder rates for the populace? But here's the thing: I don't believe your numbers.
You might want to actually quote a reliable source. Radfems do have something of a history of making grandiose claims they can't really back up. Are your numbers for sex workers in a country where it's illegal? What kind of regulations? What happens to the effect if you control for poverty? For example, I'd find it plausible that the poorest people in society have a greatly elevated rate of mental illness including PTSD and are more likely to be murdered, and that sex workers disproportionately draw from the poorest people in society.
Because if it's the latter, abolishing sex work only makes the matter worse! And how many soldiers get PTSD? How much more likely are they to die than the average person? I'd add nursing into the list of professions that have to deal with unwanted bodily fluids and police into the list of professions that have a high risk of murder and PTSD. I value and admire them all. Have you ever spent time working under ground in a coal mine or any mine?
What about those in Asia and Africa who are forced into the diamond and other gem mining areas? What about the guys who spent weeks trapped alive here in Tasmania I think. Give me free choice and I would be swinging from a Mango tree, only there aren't enough to go around. Though I would say that there's a fairly good case that we can't actually give free consent to work, especially if we're currently jobless as the government can suspend your payments for refusing a reasonable job but also more generally in the context of economics.
The problem is that pundits like Dr Jensen only have an issue with this when it comes to sex and sex work. Regardless, this is all part of a bigger discussion on consent and coercion "free", "informed", etc. You have said everything I would have said to the moralising author of the article.
In a effort to support themselves those who work in the sex industry, male and female, should at least be offered the same protections as any other worker, not marginalised and made illegal. Jade, I agree with the points you made. Thank you for putting these across so articulately. I am a well educated 50 year old woman, and I've worked in a variety of senior corporate roles in my career. I had a change of pace for 8 years when I was 30, however, and was a private sex worker.
I approached this job as I approached every other job- with a high standard of professionalism. I was good at my work, and was paid well. I stayed in the sex industry for as long as it suited me, then left to return to a previous career.
I took full precautions to mitigate risks. I felt valued for the service I could bring to many people who, for whatever reasons, felt the need to have to buy sex. Interestingly, I believe that sex workers do more to keep couples together than counselling in situations where there is a lack of balance in sex drives of each partner.
As a client once said to me, his wife was free to chose not to have sex very often. However, that was not HIS choice, and he wanted equal freedom to chose to have sex more often. As he pointed out, if he had an affair, it was likely that someone would be hurt as emotions would become involved. Therefore, he chose to buy sex professionally. It was discreet, his needs were met, and no-one was hurt. Generally, my clients were courteous, reasonable and very clear that they were purchasing sexual services, often as their fantasies.
They paid me well, and many came to see me regularly. They also respected the boundaries I made. If I had those years again, would I make the same choice to work in the sex industry?
I enjoyed that time of my life and have no regrets. And yes, I was a fully consenting, informed party of the sexual encounters. Jade you talk of clouded views of labour and moralistic views of sexuality. If we are to treat the sex industry and so called 'sex work' as a legitimate service industry then we need to challenge the stigma and discrimination created by punters.
Specifically brothels need to have gender quotas, we need to ensure that it is about experience and not who the punter deems to most desirable. If you want oral sex it would be given by the person best placed to provide that service despite whether they are male, female, trans or whatever their body type, age or ethnicity. Instead we need to make sure that they become legitimate employers with no discrimination of employees, all need to be on a wage with no differentiation between whether an individual services 7 clients while the other only services 2.
As an individual I can not go to McDonalds and demand to be served by the skinny girl, nor can I go to the hospital and say I want my treating physician to be the size 6, mid 20's female doctor of Asian decent. Until we can eliminate the gender biases of the sex industry and system of discrimination and racism inherent in it, we really can not argue that this is a legitimate service industry like any other. Good luck getting the pro-industry groups to support measures forcing punters and brothel owners to adhere to labour laws and anti-discrimination legislation.
If we could all just get over our moralizing of those in the sex industry then there would be no stigma attached to prostitutes or pornstars and they would be far less likely to need to resort to drugs and self-destruction.
There's a very similar argument in how free we are to be Christians. If the choice of religion were really free then how is it that nearly every religious person here is a Christian, nearly every person in the ME is a Muslim, and nearly every person in India is a Hindu?
At what point do we acknowledge that if there is any truth about religion then it is the truth that religion is not a free choice. How free are Muslims to be un-Muslim? How free is a child educated in a catholic school to not be Catholic. I'm not talking here about cultural or community freedom - the pressure to conform is inescapable - but the ability to free oneself in one's own mind from the lifelong indoctrination in religious doctrine.
Some prostitutes, I'm sure, feel this way about their role in the world: They have been beaten into submission. Many, I'm sure, feel otherwise: Life is made harder for them by the view of sex prostletused by men like Jensen, whose entire worldview is obsessed with other people's sex lives. Jensen cares not one jot for the plight of women, sex workers, or indeed any other group whose life choices might make them vulnerable to the ideas men like him perpetrate.
He only cares about his strict, pious outlook on the world and how we should all be obliged to live by it. You don't know what Jensen does or doesn't care jots about.
I don't think it fair for you say you do. I think it is counter to the principal of charity in critical thinking. But if frank criticism is the order of the day; can I just say I knew you were going to make this comment before you made it. I thought the topic is broadly men's sense of entitlement to women's bodies; mitor will chime in early denying there's a problem. I think entitlement to women's bodies is more a feature of marriage than it is of prostitution, which seems to me to be more of a mutual transaction: The problem with prostitution is similar to the problem with drugs - prohibition, criminalisation, misinformation, pious finger pointing, and the general feeling that fun is sinful.
Moreover, the notion that an all powerful creator of the known universe and beyond has nothing better to do than obsess over what people do with their respective down stairs equipment is patently absurd. His writings show views consistent with his position and experience. I do not think it unreasonable to form an opinion, based upon his writing, on his views. Jensen claims to be concerned with victims. Jensen frames an argument from the perspective of eliminating harm to victims.
I think the decent think to do, is to address his stated concerns. And then present compelling evidence that Jensen doesn't give a jot. Can I give examples of evidence that might reveal someone doesn't give a jot about victims of sexual violence: In high profile sexual assault allegations they reflexively side with the alleged perp and decide the complainants are lying.
Or take the example offered in the article of the victim who was unable to say no to unwanted sex. This is quite common. This happened to many of my teenage friends in date-rape scenarios. The law says one must not do this. One has to try hard to establish consent. I would imagine someone who did not give jot about victims would argue for a change in laws so that this form of sexual assault would no longer be illegal.
This is not an article about date rape, it's an article about a religious man's idea of consent in the sex work industry. You could argue that someone who has been trafficked and is working in condition of slavery is not giving their consent regardless of the financial transaction. I would agree with you. But it is neither sex nor prostitution that causes such situations to arise so easily - it is the pious, finger-pointy laws that surround sex work and consequently drive it into the hands of criminals that causes this.
Changes to these laws to make sex work legal, respectable and safe are doggedly resisted by men like Jensen. He doesn't want sex work to be safe for women. He wants it to be violent, dangerous and unpleasant. Each time a prostitute is murdered or plied with drugs or trafficked by the criminal underworld it is an incidence of divine retribution.
Jensen doesn't care about consent or women, he cares only about his holy book. Dr Jensen's comment about cannibalism was foolish and a straw man, because sexual consent generally does not allow killing or mutilation. Strangely, the usual suspects didn't pick up on that - rather, just went into his usual vitriolic rant and tried to change the topic.
Whatever Dr Jensen's views on the morality of sexual liaisons and whether people agree with him or not, he is correct in pointing out that there is a dark side - a very dark side - to the prostitution industry, and on an international level, it does indeed involve slavery. I sometimes get the impression that if Dr Jensen wrote an article reaffirming his belief in the value of human life, Mitor would advocate the decriminalisation of murder just to denounce any ideas associated with religion.
However that simply means there is a case for proper regulation of the industry to clean that out. And what is the cause? Or is it the stupid laws that push the entire industry into the hands of criminals?
How can anyone freely consent in the sex industry when to do so means breaking stupid laws? Jensen was claiming that consent is illusory in the sex industry, but his conclusion was that this is the only possible outcome in an industry built on sin. I challenge that claim. Well said oh bold one. The point about freedom to be a particular religion is a good one. Surprising how it is lost on the religious however who cling to their own religion of Islam, Christianity in it's great variety of different flavours , or other faith, secure in the belief that they were lucky enough, to be born into the one true faith.
Just a quick point - worth noting always that just like Christianity, Islam also comes in a wide variety of flavours. Please educate me Filipio. I thought there were only 2 varieties of Islam. At last count there were 40, different of Christian. Depending what you're counting there up to five branches of Islam. Sunni, Shia and Sufis being the most well known. Think of them as Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant etc. It's not all that accurate but what the hell.
Within each branch are further divisions, usually, but not always called schools. Perhaps these can be likened to Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists and so on. Each school, or equivalent is then divided into a myriad of movements, sects, organisations, bodies and branches that are different by their interpretation and weighting of scripture, but also different because we're talking different countries, different races, different languages and different cultures.
Islam is a different thing in Jakarta than it is in Mogadishu, for example. I'm notionally a Shafi'i Muslim, but you'll not mistake me for a Yemeni. Much like a fragmented Christianity, united and divided by a belief of the nature of Christ, so too a fragmented Islam is united and divided over most issues, because both were written by, made by and made for men. Christianity has a unifying Christ, Islam has a unifying shahada. It seems the shahada is the creed that there is no god but God.
That seems to be the jumping off point for deciding what that God requires. Would you include the Druze and the Alawites as Islamic? The Yasidis seem to have been a little to liberal in their borrowings from other religions to come into that group.
Curious to see the Shafi'i include some? I thought the Kurds were all closer to the Shia strand. It is belabouring the obvious to point out that all scriptures are written by men and that any claims for divine inspiration are untested.
Thanks for that Dove, you have enlightened me enormously. Just a little puzzled by your remark that you are - "notionally a Shafi'i Muslim" and then you go on to say that they were all made up by men. How do you maintain your faith given this?
Thor, I am a Muslim and try to live a good life within certain parameters and guidelines. Whist there are particular values and perspectives that I hold because of this, this is not the same thing as believing in foundation myths or taking ancient texts as verbatim.
Most religious people do, but I don't belittle, mock or needlessly criticise their beliefs or their version of faith. I'm more interested in how people behave towards others and how their actions play out in real life. Religion isn't just the children's stories or the funny hats or wording of rituals. It's about how people choose to life in the here and now- and the life I try to lead is totally compliant with the life people try to lead in Evangelical, Orthodox or Mormon Christianity.
Truth be known it's the same life people try to lead in Buddhism, Hinduism and Wiccanism. The Qur'an is an astonishing piece of literature and worthy of scholarship and even veneration. But it was written by men, is of a specific time, has a context and shouldn't be taken literally. The exhortations and commandments of the ancients shouldn't be viewed as contemporary instructions. And you you can have this debate in a mosque, but like most things, you need right context.
Some tact might help! OK, taking your reply at face value as sincere. A key issue here concerns what is meant by 'variety'. If you are referring to relatively formal demoninations, then certainly there are vastly more Christian denominations than Islamic ones. And of course there are particular demoninations that might not be recognised by others or only partially as being Christian.
In this specific sense, there are certainly more than two varieties of Islam -- I imagine you are thinking of Sunni and Shia, but one can add Sufi with parallels to Gnostic forms of Christian mysticism which stands somewhat apart from the Sunni-Shia axis, and also Ahmadiyya and Khawarij. Historically there were others, arguably no longer existing. Each of these denominational 'umbrellas' have scores of distinct branches and sects. So even at this level there is quite a bit of diversity in how people 'do' Islam.
But given a fairly clear doctrinal imperative to avoid overt divisions in what is again doctrinally envisaged as a single Islamic community, applying the notion of denomination is rather limited and misleading in relation to understanding 'variety' in Islam. More important and accurate is paying attention to distinctive forms of collective practice of the religion by particular populations, who may well just refer to themselves as 'Muslims', or perhaps as Sunni.
Remember in the absence of a centralised ecclesiastical order, such as exists in most major Christian churches, local forms of Islamic leadership have proliferated over centuries, some more localised, some more national.
The influence of pre-existing indigenous cultures is profound. So distinctive regional variants of Islamic practice -- of the sort that often attract description as a 'denomination' in Christianity -- abound.
This pushes the idea of 'varieties' of Islam out to number in the many, many thousands. Thanks for that Filipio. I suppose that when a religion is introduced to a different culture some modifications are inevitable. Christianity has had a lot of this in places like South America - some quite bizarre.
I guess what sets Christianity apart is the way it splinters into different groups in the same cultural background. America, the USA , is the spawning ground of so many. Luckily that's not the case here. There may be a cultural thing, but that's not a legal thing. I do like the line 'nearly every religious person here is a Christian', as it ignores those who don't have a religion which according to my memory of the census is getting larger.
As for a child within a catholic school, i'll expect they are doing the motions of doing whatever the rest of the class is doing, but I seriously doubt the school is keeping a count of which ones go to mass on the weekend, or how often they go to confessions.
Or how many believe in the real presence in communions. So I'll say 'not a lot' Now can you be a non catholic in a catholic school? I do know a Christian who worked in a muslim school as a teacher, so MAYBE there is no requirement to actually be catholic to go to a catholic school.
He wrote it down? Perhaps part of what Mitor was pointing out is the fact that many people raised in a religious tradition have been truly brainwashed in the sense that any questioning of the faith was consistently meant with threats and rejection by family and community.
For example I know a few people who were raised in Muslim countries who said they learned from a very early age to dare not question religion or face the worst possible consequences. By which I don't necessarily mean death, but complete ostracism from family, friends and community. Obviously they did not freely choose their faith under such circumstances.
So Jensen should argue that religious indoctrination of children is child abuse and should be illegal. You were putting good arguments until the last paragraph, and then spoilt it all by nastiness. You do not know what Jensen cares about and it is not your place to judge another person's morals and motives. Best stick to the message of the article and give up attacking the message. Connie41, You suggest that Mitor doesn't "know what Jensen cares about and it is not your place to judge another person's morals and motives" Actually Jensen makes his position abundantly clear in this opinion piece and in his early opinion pieces.
After all he is the rector at St Mark's Anglican Church and the position of the Anglican Church in relation to controlling the sexual activities of human beings is well defined and publically available. Just as Mr Jensen's opinions are clearly defined in his many opinions pieces for the Drum which can be viewed by clicking on his name above. What Mr Jensen clearly concerns himself with is not the welfare of sex workers or their clients but instead with the ability to proselytise and control the lives of other human beings with his religions doctrines and earn a living, as a Rector does, from the adherence to the said religion by other human beings via their tithes.
The greater danger to society and humans is not sex workers, their clients, or consensual sexual acts Throughout life, people have to make decisions; not all of which are wise. Some are out of need, greed and necessity; while others happen on the spur of the moment. Selling one's own body is something that a woman has to live with, whether it be a one off time or a long time profession.
When I was at university in the early 's in Melbourne, I worked part time as a waitress to pay for accommodation and other living expenses. I was born and raised in the country, so city life was new to me. One night after working a Friday night, the restaurant I worked in was fire bombed and destroyed in a gangland war.
I had no job then and no income. One of my roommates was a prostitute and she got me a job at a well known brothel in Melbourne. I worked nights a week during my final year at university. After leaving university, I got a job in the armed forces and quit my sex work. Twelve months later I was married and I am still happily married. I am not proud of the fact I sold my body as it was out of necessity. I believe it made me a more understanding and a better woman for the experience.
I might add that I was never into drugs and still clean in that respect. Drugs were rife even when I worked in the 's. Thank you for your story queenguinevere. I recently spoke with a woman who arrived in Australia as a refugee from Latin America, a single mother of three, and she chooses to work in the sex industry because that's the only way she can put food on the table for her family. The real outrage in this situation is not that she does sex work, but that in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, in a time when the world has never been wealthier, people don't have more choices about the work that they do.
Thank's for sharing your story queenguinevere - most touching and illustrative, of how life's experiences can push us in different directions. There is no black and white on the issue of prostitution, although I can see the value in making it legal, and having control over stopping the ratbags, from exploiting the vulnerable. And, if as you say if it made you a more understanding and better woman then you should feel proud. Self improvement is on the core purposes of humans.
I respect you and your choice. I am not judgmental of QG's choice but clearly there is a huge difference between the intimacy required in sex work and that involved in serving customers from behind a counter.
Sex work puts people at much more risk, by necessity it involves acts away from public scrutiny in isolated places. Some can handle themselves well where others would struggle. Sex work leaves a mental scar on many workers. I do not suggest banning it on that basis. There are no good solutions but to this outsider decriminalisation seems like the least worst solution.
A Swedish model not that you suggested it makes it difficult for women to work in company and leaves them without the limited protection of fellow workers some of whom are also undoubtedly exploiters. Have you ever used the words "I'm not proud" to describe any job you have ever engaged in.
The difference you highlight between waitressing etc and the intimacy required and the vulnerability of the sex worker is valid and of primary concern. As you say, as matters stand now, mental scars are sometimes the result of sex worker's choice.
So I make the choice as non-informed outsider to not make it worse by judging them. Not disagreeing with you either Drum Roller. That went off at tangent to save myself further posting. To some people, emotional intimacy is not required for sex; for others, it is. One of the arguments in favour of professionally-run brothels is the protection they can offer employees. I didn't suggest emotional intimacy though David, I was thinking of physical intimacy.
Often with unshaven, malodourous drunks. I agree well-organised brothels sound a better alternative but even they offer limited protection, a worker must be in a position to signal her distress before her protectors can get involved. Presumably there will always be a delay. I do not believe what you have described constitutes consent. I know people who entered the sex industry by choice. I know one who left by choice got a job managing a major retail chain and then left to go back to work in the sex industry because the conditions were superior.
I'm not going to argue this is the norm. But I am going to argue that the Swedish model doesn't work. Their own evaluation report said that street prostitution had halved but that people working in the field do not consider that there has been an increase in prostitution since the ban. But the report also criticised the fact that information was now harder to come by and that they couldn't be certain on many of the facets.
If the best thing about the laws the people working in the field can say is that prostitution has not increased. And the murder rate has not gone down. And that it is harder to get information so some guess work needs to be utalised.
Then wouldn't it be better to legalise it, regulate it and hit up every person who steps a toe outside the rules as hard as you can? Wouldn't it be better to say, you must have a registered premises, so you know where the activities are occurring. You must be registered. Or you must have certain security?
When none of the countries which have implemented the rules can show a decrease in prostitution, but all of them can show a decrease in available information doesn't that make you question the model?
I find it somewhat disturbing that someone found working conditions better in the sex industry than in major retail chains. I am not surprised, though. The only real choice we all have is which employer will abuse us.
Sex workers are not alone in that experience, though their particular form of abuse does appear to be objectively worse than many others. This equally applies to everyone. The gender any particular person happens to be is largely irrelevant.
I do believe that the basic problem revealed by this article is the entitlement that some people feel to do whatever the hell they want to other people. My friend commonly argues that she had similar abuses and was held up while working in retail. She couldn't dictate her own hours and the pay was a pittance when compared to her sex work.
Her boss was unreasonable and would commonly abuse her and she was propositioned by the area group managed. If that was going to be the case then why not get paid more, set your own hours and do it your way? It's out of sight, out of mind as far as advocates of the Swedish model go. If prostitutes are forced underground to meet up with at risk clients and are made more vulnerable to assault and worse the advocates will tut-tut but consider their work is done.
I find this nauseating. It is all about the advocates parading their morality with zero concern for the objects of their 'charity'. I try not to take an anti-religious stance but I saw this approach mirrored in Monday night's Q and A. The worthy religios did not want Australia to participate in any more wars. Not a moment's thought as to the potential genocide of the Yazidis and other minority sects, it's all about our moral class keeping their hands clean.
Totally useless and impractical? Doesn't matter, they just want to avoid responsibility for difficult decisions. Ah, religious figures, railing against the evils of prostitution since at least the iron age. Vanguards of the efforts to ensure that, as a profession and practice, it remains as awful and alienating as possible so that they'll never be without a scapegoat for society's ills. Well, personally I'll take the word of the Scarlet Alliance above anyone else, when it comes to prostitution.
They're one of the rare voices talking about prostitution who actually have any first-hand knowledge. I've talked to plenty of intelligent and proud sex workers in my life, and most of them enjoy their work Did you know, for example, that most customers of sex workers are individuals with disabilities being brought by their families?
I do, because I've talked to current workers who want to be there, rather than intentionally conflating them with victims of pedophilia seriously, you're including an account from a child rape victim in your argument against professional sex work?
On the bright side, the religious argument doesn't appear to have been refined any since medieval times. Done, the attitude by many of the churches that people should obey the will of god, or that sex work is wrong, sets oddly with the belief held by many who contribute here that the only thing that should be considered is personal responsibility.
How do some of these people reconcile these two contradictory beliefs. As many people have made clear, the job you end up with up is far from being just a personal choice. That situation can be generalized to just about anything in life. Perspectives on sexuality and sex work are the end results of many forces, some of which we may be totally unconscious of. You have just described many women who work in factories, in hospitality, who clean other people's houses to put food on their tables.
If you can see a difference then that's because men like jenson have convinced you there's something very wrong with recreational sex.
Prostitution, if done properly, is far easier money-making than toilet-cleaning or trench-digging and better-paid than dish-washing or bottle-collecting too. I'd do it if I was pretty. She considered herself in the mid-range for prices, saw about one client per day, for hours.
I'd do it in a heartbeat too if I could. I could pay off my mortgage in a matter of months! Dear Big Ben In my youth I worked for some years as a barman, yardman etc in the hotel industry. This was at the time of the topless and bottomless barmaid. These women usually only worked a shift of a few hours, and were paid multiples of the hourly rate of the other staff.
Although a callow youth, I did wonder why some women were prepared to work completely naked in a room full of semi-drunken men, and how their clothed co-workers felt about it. To my surprise, both groups were happy. Those with no clothes said that they enjoyed having to work only a handful of hours a week.
Some were students, some had young children, some just liked the free time. Those with clothes wished the others good luck, some saying they wished they had the courage or the physical attributes to follow their lead. But they did not see them as victims, nor doubt their ability to decide to work naked for more money.
I am not saying that naked barmaiding is like prostitution, but I would hazard a guess that Dr Jensen does not like it and is happy it is now banned. But those to whom I spoke seemed quite intelligent and hardworking, and the industry seemed well run.
It was stopped because others, presumably not customers or participants, did not like it. I find Dr Jensen's article very strong on his views on sex and morality, and, other than a couple of anecdotes to support his argument, very weak on evidence. Are we as a society better off without naked barmaids?
But was it inherently evil to the point where it should have been outlawed? I have my doubts. As I do with the demand to outlaw prostitution. Because that is what Dr Jensen demands, despite his concentration on "victims". He offers no solution for the problems of the women whose sole source of income he will remove. Men with money will still get sex from women who want money, as men with power still get sex from women who want protection. It is just that it will be done secretly and illegally.
We will have a complement to the drug industry and look how well that has worked out. Tabanus, "I am not saying that naked barmaiding [aka.
Which just shows that people have different views on the subject. Just as many lawyers wouldn't want to be accountants, and many accountants wouldn't want to be lawyers. The important thing is that prostitutes, strippers, lawyers and accountants should be allowed to work in a legalised and regulated industry with appropriate occupational health and safety laws in place. After all no one wants to see lawyers be exploited. The sex workers were and are exploited - except for the very few.
Absolutely nothing wrong with recreational sex. Dunno how you extrapolated that form my comments. I am an act utilitarian atheist. Religion does not come into my comments,. Religion does not come into my comments," That is a classic! Those starving artists who sold themselves out to The System and went a masquerading as English teachers sure have a few questions to answer and apologies to make for all those woodducks who never got taught the definition of 'religion' in class..
Religion isn't about right and wrong - it's about doctrinal and not doctrinal. There nothing 'right' about stoning adulterers and there's nothing 'wrong' with questioning authority, but you couldn't reach that conclusion from reading the bible.
Maybe the people who masquerade as ethicists should get back to their day jobs as bouncers, hangmen and abattoir workers. The only thing worse than a farm animal without a watcher is a farm animal that thinks the wolves are there to teach them right from wrong.
The pigs and the cows and the sheep who learn to develop rules that make the farm work better for all the animals and to keep the wolves out do so much better. You could say the same about many hospitality workers. Are they unable to consent to the use of their bodies for the purposes of waitressing or cleaning up after us too?
Whilst I generally agree with your sentiments Jade to equate prostitution with waitressing or cleaning is at best idealistic. The remuneration for prostitution for the hours worked is high for a reason.
It should be possible to easily equate sex work with other kinds of work. It is our insistence as a society that there is something intangibly wrong with it that causes the problem. It's probably just a reflection on our own episodes of bedroomidinal fortitude that brings on that generalised 'doom and gloom' attitude on the matter, barbecued over a hot flame with taboo-flavoured seasoning to add some extra punch to that victorian ether of the mind alone and nothing else which is anybody's business worth knowing about.
Why did you work as a taxi driver? Was it because of your passion for the job, or for the paycheque that paid your rent and put food on the table? If I'd had my druthers, I'd have been an Olympic champion. But I didn't get that choice because I'm a klutz with no athletic ability.
We deal with life as it is, and the limitations that circumstances and genes throw at us. That doesn't mean we don't have choices, and it doesn't mean some throwback to 19th century paternalism should tsk tsk because we make poor decisions.
Thankfully the ALP had brought in free uni education. Same hours as many of the sex workers - some of whom became regulars and we would have a coffee on the way to their home.
Learnt about the exploitation, miserable conditions in most brothels. My comments are not paternalistic nor critical of the people who have little alternatives. Most were struggling to survive, very few not. There was no tsk tsk. For most of us our choices are limited in some way typically income, education. Drug dependency, escaping violent husbands and having children were common explanations given It was volunteered by way of I guess you are wondering..
NRH - I wasn't referring to your views, but to the author's, as being paternalistic. I do apologize for the very poor wording of my comment. There are a number of countries who have completely legalised prostitution in a way which has empowered and protected the women and men involved in the industry and removed the criminal element and danger from the work.
People justify their choices in many different ways Joe I would add to your list of objections the almost inevitable corruption that would arise as some police would accept payment from prostitutes to turn a blind eye to their activities. The payment could be in cash or in kind. The experience in the past has been that some police would see themselves as entitled to both, no matter what the objections from the workers. A long time ago I drove cabs as well nrh. Surely you didn't get too many life stories from your passengers.
Some prostitutes are obvious, some you pick up from their place of work and rarely felt like talking to cabbies in my limited experience and some are unrecognisable. I really don't think you can generalise when you are only picking up on the work of a minority of badly-affected individuals in the industry. I'm not suggesting you are wrong just saying be careful about extrapolating from the people that meet your expectations. Am a sceptic about most things ie don't take them at face value - guess science background taught me to test theories so i try not to generalise and be open to new theories.
You make symbols for clauses and connectors and can then mathematically do it. This was a thoughtful piece and I was pleased to see the emphasis on punishing men involved in sex trade rather than further burdening women with punishment.
I do quarrel with the implied argument that all women in the sex trade are not giving genuine consent. There are some women albeit a minority who freely choose sex work. I don't understand that choice, but my lack of understanding, or approval, does not mean that it is not a genuinely free choice on their part. Men are involved in sex work as clients and it does seem absurd to me that women can be prosecuted for selling sex, while there is no penalty for men who buy sex.
Men are also involved in organized sex trading, which, for the most part, can only be described as sexual slavery. Is it also absurd to you that police go after drug dealers rather than the users? If it makes it easier for you to process the point of this hypothetical, let's say the dealer is a man while the user is a woman. Their clients are both men and women. Any man who has appeared in a romance film has prostituted his dignity to satiate faceless women's desire for emotional pornography.
Maybe it's time we stopped devaluing sex and gender shaming men for biological urges they have no control over, and started to unpack female sexual fetishes, instead. I agree it was thoughtful piece. There is much that could be written about what we call rational, what we call consent, and what we call coercion. I was interested in ".. Some of these things are not like the others. A drugged or badly addicted person is not acting with their mind intact, someone offered money generally is.
A bullied person is in physical fear, a nagged person is not. Exercising choice does not mean all choices are equally good or made in perfect circumstances. The right to make the best of a bad lot is still a right, and if judgement is to be made, it is upon the people who created the circumstances not the person making the choice. How do you know it is a 'minority' of sex-workers that 'choose' sex-work? I worked in the sex industry in NSW, by choice, for a number of years.
It's progressive, and as safe as you make it. With regards to consent, accepting a client is giving consent. There were some clients I didn't accept, as was my right. Diplomacy was important in these cases, but then it is in many lines of work. Some women engage sex workers as well. Presumably still the male sex worker's fault from your point of view I imagine. And if both parties are female? Even if I was young and physically appealing I doubt I have the psychological make up required to be able to handle sex work.
I am much more cautious than you about describing that as a moral point of view and seeking to impose it on others. The Swedish model makes reporting crimes against sex workers much more difficult as they find themselves under police scrutiny after acknowledging they work in the industry. If they have children welfare becomes involved. Plus they need to be much more covert in their activities to find and retain their clients. This puts them in a much more vulnerable position. Putting the onus on male clients might appeal to some but if they actually think about the issues rather than react to them it is very difficult to support such laws.
There is much to think about in a complex area, but I don't think the term "sex work" can be called a euphemism. It says what it is. On the contrary, I think that "prostitution" is the euphemism. If we are discussing prostitution then your arguments bring up many more issues about the way we structure society and work related issues specifically.
Many of these issues don't fall into the dictionary definition of "prostitution", but they are problematic nevertheless, and I for one have trouble distinguishing them morally from prostitution. How often do we hear someone say "I'm just doing my job", as they justify some kind of unsavoury practice - whether it be issuing a parking ticket or repossessing a car?
This situation echoes what Stanley Milgram called the "agentic" personality - the phenomenon where people separate themselves from any sense of responsibility in order to follow someone else's direction, regardless of the consequences of that direction. Most of humankind, regrettably, is agentic. So has the agentic personality also sacrificed "consent", or have they "consented" to behave in an obedient and irresponsible fashion?
If we can answer these questions, we can address issues that infect our society far beyond the question of "sex work". My question to you is: War crimes courts have long dismissed the argument that one can abrogate responsibility for one's actions if one is merely following orders, and I don't see why this wouldn't apply to other types of agent. If my sin causes unwanted pain to others then I more than likely have committed a crime. Sex is a service. If I want to sell sex that is my choice.
This approach would make it impossible for me to provide this service, thereby destroying my choice. If it was done to any other business there would be an outcry. The issue really is that the "religious" have a "thing" about sex. They seem deeply disturbed that people would actually enjoy having sex. The implore government's to keep it under warps so our minds are not distracted from paying tribute to god. As for kids and sex I wonder if there is anyone that didn't take part in sexual activities before they were I know I did.
The urge for sex was like a fever. And no matter how much I prayed or how many chastity belts I wore I still had the urge. The religious are in denial regarding sex and they are twisting society by their continual ply to keep it in the back room and we all pay for this. This model seems to be based upon the assumption that ALL prostitutes are victims, an assumption for which there is no supporting evidence. You cant "sign" your rights away as established in law.
Also often as a society under law we consider what "mental and emotional state" your in when you make decisions, and the quality of information given you had at the time you based your decision on.
The Idea that all women are victims as prostitutes is a generalisation and it will be true for some but for many others not. Take out the Moralistic agenda here and you will find some women like the hours, the money etc. The cherry picked comentary by sex workers is clearly amining for a biased viewpoint. God help us that women can make choices for themselves. That being said we must heavily regulate and provide support services to ensure its a safe environment for women to work without exploitation.
Can women make choices for themselves or do we have to babysit them every step of the way to ensure they're 'free from exploitation' like no man in all of human history ever was. Mike J, The reason for legalisation and regulation is to ensure that the men and women who make a career out of prostitution receive the same sorts of employment protections as everyone else. It would be inappropriate for their clients to bash them if they disliked their tax liability as per the tax return prepared.
The same applies to people who choose to be engaged in the sex industry Why do you think that needs to be stated explicitly, Joe? As a society, we ensure that legal vocations are 'safe environments for people to work in without exploitation' as a matter of course. IMO, singling one profession out because it is majority female implies that it needs or would receive extra attention and additional protections.
Legal prostitutes receive the same protections from exploitation as every other worker in every other industry, including the male-dominated ones with much higher workplace fatality rates that aren't mentioned here because as we all know women being coerced into sex is worse than men being killed.
There is no more need for us to stand paternally over the shoulders of women making sure they don't make mistakes than there is for us to mitigate their responsibility and cover their losses when they do. Regulations and support services provide a safe workplace and protection from the specific hazards of the industry.
It's providing the minimum expectation under law that Australians expect as workers. So I guess you can stop demanding these things considering they're already mandated at law.
Demanding something implies you don't already have it. Not rocket science, and definately not worth any critique. Nothing to see here move on! And I naively thought prostitution was not gender specific. Well, I kind of thought that just about any form of work involved temporary enslavement. You don't get to do what you want, when you want, how you want, on the boss's time and dollar.
And remember since they are you slave, you can beat them, and if they survive for more then 2 days, then you are in the clear. Yes, that's exactly what we need. Another middle-aged white male telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies. It's not him telling you, it's the opinion from an old work of fiction he has chosen to waste his life on. You could respect a reasoned argument, even if you disagreed with the underlying premises, but knowing that it is the opinion of a handful of Mystics from antiquity makes it irrelevant.
But yes, it does seem to be old, white, sex-obsessed males trying to assert their hang ups by restricting the rights of women to freely choose to do things old, white, sex-obsessed men disapprove of.
Thank you Michael for that insightful discussion of consent, and the false assumptions on which prostitution is justified. I think there is much room for both conservatives and progressives who care about violence against women to agree on reforms that give pathways for women to escape and penalise the people who profit from and temporarily buy the bodies of women. The analogy with slavery is apt. Let's hope the policy makers act on this and adopt the Nordic model. I agree with you up until "people who profit from and temporarily buy the bodies of women.
I wanted to spend yesterday looking up youtube clips of puppies being cute, but apparently I am enslaved by my employer and my body and mind have been temporarily bought. Yes, he swept right over that in pursuit of his argument.
A free choice is one made for some perceived benefit of the chooser, made without coercion. It could be mistaken, it could be ultimately harmful, but to say it is without agency every single time just because it might be without agency sometimes is rubbish. It is the slavery part of sexual slavery that is wrong, ditto coercion by drug addiction, fear, or any of the other foul means that this is carried out.
That this happens is not an argument against sex work, it is an argument against coercion. The Swedish model makes women more vulnerable to violent offenders. Your views are simplistic. Suggest you seek out the views of Swedish sex workers subject to such 'protections'. In Norway selling sex is legal, as it is in Sweden. But buying sex in those nations is illegal. Which has simply again pushed the market underground and left the men and women who sell sex exposed to the nefarious activities of organised crime syndicates and left without the protections afforded to them when the industry is legalised.
Exploitation only occurs in a criminalised market place. I'm all for legalised prostitution. But, I want commercial enterprises regulated, to prevent the exploitation which, as we should all know by now, can include slavery of vulnerable workers. Michael, first off I don't agree with your "enslaved" comment regarding women in sex work.
Much like contemporary feminism, it infantilizes adult females into a position of, in all, circumstances as victims. Why women accept this slur, astonishes me. Second, I have zero interest in being a customer of such services. In fact I think they are quite bad in their spiritual and social ramifications. But I fully accept both the worker and the clients choice to choose. Women's sexuality is a broad church. Certainly, not all are "victims". It could be argued that you sell your soul, in your paid profession.
So who are you to advise others, on there choices regarding the intangible? Detective Inspector Dick Powell, who heads Scotland Yard's strong vice squad, said the growing trend towards unprotected sex was a measure of the desperation and exploitation in the sex trade and had "horrendous" implications for public health. Speaking to the Guardian, Det Insp Powell said: Nowadays, it's the norm, not the exception. The whole set-up is appalling. Most of these places are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and women are expected to be 'on call' day and night.
It's very rare the prostitute will get to keep any of the money she earns. Anna Johansson, team leader with the Poppy Project, a Home Office-funded scheme which provides support to women trafficked into prostitution in the UK, is aware of more women from eastern Europe, particularly Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and the Czech Republic. She is also concerned about the rising number of foreign women forced to provide very cheap, unprotected and "rough" sex, thus forcing many other prostitutes to do likewise.
But the climate has definitely become much rougher, with most punters demanding unprotected or anal sex, previously considered expensive 'specials'. Other women are following suit with the same services in order to compete. The Poppy Project, which offers practical help and counselling, has 25 residential places, and has had referrals since it began in March Det Insp Powell said EU expansion made things cheaper and easier for traffickers, as they no longer had to smuggle women or provide them with false passports.
Helen Ward, consultant in charge of the Praed Street Project, which specialises in London sex workers' health, said she was not aware of any recent upsurge in sexual disease among prostitutes.
She felt there was unfair prejudice against migrant sex workers and called for the authorities to adopt a more tolerant attitude, giving prostitutes proper protection and combating the underworld economy.
SEX ESCORTS HIGH END BROTHELS SYDNEY
: Most expensive prostitute anal sex New South Wales
|INDEPENDENT ASIAN ESCORT ESCORTS BABE NEW SOUTH WALES||Mike, if you are not living in a vacuum then your choices are partly the result of influences on you. How about we talk about what is within our jurisdiction seeing you are advocating legislation. Most of these places are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and women are expected to be 'on call' day and night. Hornsby Hornsby NSW I think you've missed the point their dr dig; Would you be happy for your children to be sex workers? There are some women albeit a minority who freely choose sex work.|
|Girls like sex top escorts||I did read that she rightly compared to coal miners. Second, I have zero interest in being a customer of such services. After all he is the rector at St Mark's Anglican Church and the position of the Anglican Church in relation to controlling the sexual activities of human beings is well defined and publically available. It pays more, the conditions are better, you can be self employed, work less, requires no training. Sakura Palace is a council approved Sydney brothel established in and is centrally located in Surry Hills.|
|High class escort adult entertainment classifieds New South Wales||I thought there were only 2 varieties of Islam. Curious to see the Shafi'i include some? I try not to take an anti-religious stance but I saw this approach mirrored in Monday night's Q and A. If we can answer these questions, we can address issues that infect our society far beyond the question of "sex work". And the parts of the legal system that are predicated on personal responsibility were cobbled together in a largely pre-scientific dark age. If a woman who doesn't want to do sex work is sufficiently desperate that she would do sex work, but sex work is effectively abolished - not because it's illegal, something Nordic that means there are very few buyers .|