Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
griffon11

The Times Column Today

29 posts in this topic

Got to subscribe to read it

 

No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give us the gist griffon?

 

Like who wrote it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the article.

 

As the trials of elderly TV stars charged with 1970s sex offences grind on, I hear one universal shrugging defence. “Well, it was the culture back then, wasn’t it?” Maybe, 40 years ago, from BBC Television Centre to the lowliest typing pool, men copped a feel and women didn’t squeal.

But now it seems antediluvian that honking a colleague’s breast would barely get you a slapped wrist, let alone a one-way trip to HR. If the allegations against Lord Rennard are to be believed, some men apparently still try to leverage authority over women to grab a sexual thrill. Yet there is almost universal agreement: this is wrong.

If this bulwark of male power can be blown away in a generation, could another? Do men have the right to buy sex with prostitutes? For thousands of years the answer has been a categoric yes. From the “comfort stations” of the Japanese military to the “bunny ranches” of Nevada, provision has been made to address the “needs” of men to have sex with women, if not via consenting relationships, in exchange for cash.

In recent decades Amsterdam was held as the model for the modern sex industry. Have the prostitutes display their bodies in shop windows, let male punters browse between them. Free market, free love. Exposed to daylight, it was believed, the darker side of prostitution — trafficking, violence, exploitation — would disappear.

Yet across Europe the mood has changed. In France, where the sexual peccadilloes of men, powerful or otherwise, have always received special indulgence, the Senate is expected to pass a law in June that will make buying sex illegal. The crime of soliciting by prostitutes will be abolished and schemes

will be set up to help them to leave the sex trade. While their would-be clients will be fined €1,500 for a first offence.

And later this month the European Parliament will vote to adopt a similiar policy, already passed by its Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Committee. The “Nordic” model of prostitution laws, which,

in the words of the Icelandic politician Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, states “it is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold” is in the ascendent.

The Nordic model claims success in reducing prostitution because it targets the reduction of demand.

To the sex industry’s defendants, demand is a constant: the male libido must be satisfied and, if denied prostitutes, men may be compelled to rape. But in Sweden male punters are pursued hard by police and fined. Funnily enough, demand has decreased and the number of women in prostitution has declined with no spike in sexual violence. Moreover, Sweden has only one quarter of the trafficking cases of next-door Denmark, which decriminalised prostitution in 1999.

In the liberal regimes, legal brothels have not contained the problem. Amsterdam’s red light district has sprawled over the city. Across Europe, stag parties and lads weekends have made it their go-to destination for paid-for poon, alarming its citizens and causing the Dutch authorities lately to tighten their laws. Unwatched by the police, pimps are free to do as they please: as demand soars they have met it with an influx of women from abroad, many trafficked.

Globalisation has further tilted the imbalance of power between the male punter with his wallet and the woman who rents her vagina for a fee. In France, 85 per cent of prostitutes are immigrants, many without papers, vulnerable to exploitation. In Germany, with its legal super-brothels, it is about two thirds. If demand is not tackled, more will come. Is that something any Western nation should be proud of: an underclass of poor women from Thai villages and Ukrainian towns, imported to service First World penises?

Demand for paid sex is not static but variable. The number of British men who use prostitutes has doubled from 1 in 20 in 1990 to 1 in 10 today. The stigma of buying a woman has faded as prostitution was rebranded as part of the leisure industry.

Lads mags run features on Europe’s best brothels. Lap-dancing clubs have proliferated in high streets, with a small step between buying a naked frot and a sexual service. Cheap long-haul flights mean men who buy girls in Asia bring their habit home and websites with client reviews such as Punternet show them where to feed it.

The rise of the Nordic model suggests that the myths perpetuated by the porn industry over the past decade — that women are up-for-it 24/7, happy handmaidens of men’s desires — are falling away. Key to this was a notion that prostitutes, were on an equal footing to their clients, that far from being exploited, they were providing another service, cheerfully — even ecstatically — administered. A small and voluble sex worker lobby, including that suspected fantastist Belle de Jour, has shouted loudly that prostitution is a liberating profession.

Less is heard from the 89 per cent of prostitutes who say they wish to leave the profession, the vast majority who were sexually abused as children, the two thirds with symptoms of PTSD or the many addicted to drugs, as well you might be, selling your body to a dozen or more strangers a day. But in Britain we still tolerate men perpetuating an inherently exploitative trade.

Yet there are signs of change here too. The leak of an Amnesty International policy document arguing that criminalising paid-for sex was a violation of male human rights was greeted with outrage because it suggested this superseded the female right not to be sold.

As we are all too aware, sexual mores can change with time. If groping is no longer tolerable why is buying a woman’s body? What men have long called their “needs” should be distinguished from their desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the article.

 

As the trials of elderly TV stars charged with 1970s sex offences grind on, I hear one universal shrugging defence. “Well, it was the culture back then, wasn’t it?” Maybe, 40 years ago, from BBC Television Centre to the lowliest typing pool, men copped a feel and women didn’t squeal.

But now it seems antediluvian that honking a colleague’s breast would barely get you a slapped wrist, let alone a one-way trip to HR. If the allegations against Lord Rennard are to be believed, some men apparently still try to leverage authority over women to grab a sexual thrill. Yet there is almost universal agreement: this is wrong.

If this bulwark of male power can be blown away in a generation, could another? Do men have the right to buy sex with prostitutes? For thousands of years the answer has been a categoric yes. From the “comfort stations” of the Japanese military to the “bunny ranches” of Nevada, provision has been made to address the “needs” of men to have sex with women, if not via consenting relationships, in exchange for cash.

In recent decades Amsterdam was held as the model for the modern sex industry. Have the prostitutes display their bodies in shop windows, let male punters browse between them. Free market, free love. Exposed to daylight, it was believed, the darker side of prostitution — trafficking, violence, exploitation — would disappear.

Yet across Europe the mood has changed. In France, where the sexual peccadilloes of men, powerful or otherwise, have always received special indulgence, the Senate is expected to pass a law in June that will make buying sex illegal. The crime of soliciting by prostitutes will be abolished and schemes

will be set up to help them to leave the sex trade. While their would-be clients will be fined €1,500 for a first offence.

And later this month the European Parliament will vote to adopt a similiar policy, already passed by its Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Committee. The “Nordic” model of prostitution laws, which,

in the words of the Icelandic politician Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, states “it is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold” is in the ascendent.

The Nordic model claims success in reducing prostitution because it targets the reduction of demand.

To the sex industry’s defendants, demand is a constant: the male libido must be satisfied and, if denied prostitutes, men may be compelled to rape. But in Sweden male punters are pursued hard by police and fined. Funnily enough, demand has decreased and the number of women in prostitution has declined with no spike in sexual violence. Moreover, Sweden has only one quarter of the trafficking cases of next-door Denmark, which decriminalised prostitution in 1999.

In the liberal regimes, legal brothels have not contained the problem. Amsterdam’s red light district has sprawled over the city. Across Europe, stag parties and lads weekends have made it their go-to destination for paid-for poon, alarming its citizens and causing the Dutch authorities lately to tighten their laws. Unwatched by the police, pimps are free to do as they please: as demand soars they have met it with an influx of women from abroad, many trafficked.

Globalisation has further tilted the imbalance of power between the male punter with his wallet and the woman who rents her vagina for a fee. In France, 85 per cent of prostitutes are immigrants, many without papers, vulnerable to exploitation. In Germany, with its legal super-brothels, it is about two thirds. If demand is not tackled, more will come. Is that something any Western nation should be proud of: an underclass of poor women from Thai villages and Ukrainian towns, imported to service First World penises?

Demand for paid sex is not static but variable. The number of British men who use prostitutes has doubled from 1 in 20 in 1990 to 1 in 10 today. The stigma of buying a woman has faded as prostitution was rebranded as part of the leisure industry.

Lads mags run features on Europe’s best brothels. Lap-dancing clubs have proliferated in high streets, with a small step between buying a naked frot and a sexual service. Cheap long-haul flights mean men who buy girls in Asia bring their habit home and websites with client reviews such as Punternet show them where to feed it.

The rise of the Nordic model suggests that the myths perpetuated by the porn industry over the past decade — that women are up-for-it 24/7, happy handmaidens of men’s desires — are falling away. Key to this was a notion that prostitutes, were on an equal footing to their clients, that far from being exploited, they were providing another service, cheerfully — even ecstatically — administered. A small and voluble sex worker lobby, including that suspected fantastist Belle de Jour, has shouted loudly that prostitution is a liberating profession.

Less is heard from the 89 per cent of prostitutes who say they wish to leave the profession, the vast majority who were sexually abused as children, the two thirds with symptoms of PTSD or the many addicted to drugs, as well you might be, selling your body to a dozen or more strangers a day. But in Britain we still tolerate men perpetuating an inherently exploitative trade.

Yet there are signs of change here too. The leak of an Amnesty International policy document arguing that criminalising paid-for sex was a violation of male human rights was greeted with outrage because it suggested this superseded the female right not to be sold.

As we are all too aware, sexual mores can change with time. If groping is no longer tolerable why is buying a woman’s body? What men have long called their “needs” should be distinguished from their desires.

Surely, if women are happy to "sell their bodies" they should be allowed to. The important thing is that they do so freely, safely  and without the control of a pimp.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errr except I don't sell my body, I sell a service which I deliver using my body. No-one owns me when they book me, we play by rules as part of a business agreement, which is contracted between me and the client.

Edited by Strawberry
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A builder 'sells his body' when he goes to work, as does every other job from footballer to typist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wondered if it was Janice Turner - she's got "form"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errr except I don't sell my body, I sell a service which I deliver using my body. No-one owns me when they book me, we play by rules as part of a business agreement, which is contracted between me and the client.

you are a consenting adult selling something to another consenting adult.  WTF has that got to do with anyone else?  People like the article writer should fuck off and find a real victim.  How about FGM, or people trafficked to work in agriculture so we can buy cheap veg in Tesco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They pretend they dont know the difference between selling our bodies and selling our services and selling our souls, the assume the first and last and dispute the second is even possible without the last 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Janice Turner's article is flawed in so many ways. Her claims that the Nordic model is successful are dodgy considering she has no evidence to back it up, and indeed, Norway were considering backing out of it due to its lack of success. Her claim about Sweden only having a quarter of the trafficking cases as Denmark seems decidedly dodgy. Since Sweden seems to prefer writing dodgy reports about how successful their model is rather than actually measure its success and admit its a failure, as well as their ignorance of online prostitution and the closed door prostitution exposed by Pye Jacobsen, any data they provide about their lower rate of trafficking must be treated with a pinch of salt

 

The European Parliament will have a tough time putting through any Nordic model policy whilst countries such as Germany and the Netherlands have it legal. The Dutch authorities have been tightening their laws due to more anti-prostitution politicians coming into power rather than anything to do with trafficking, and her assertions that the pimps are having their own way in the Netherlands unwatched by police are baseless and she comes across as inventing fake facts from the top of her head.

 

The excellent article below by Belinda Brooks-Gordon seems to me a far better critique of European Parliament's proposed policy than the one Janice Turner is trying to peddle.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sex-law-expert-belinda-brooks-gordon-why-nordic-model-prostitution-does-not-work-1434028

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They pretend they dont know the difference between selling our bodies and selling our services and selling our souls, the assume the first and last and dispute the second is even possible without the last 

Who ever I consent to sex with, partner, lover, client they don't get my body on a plate - it's a 2 way thing with built in boundaries.

 

I'm starting to think perhaps women who think we are victims and raped in the line of our work, they see sex as giving your body to your partner to do as he pleases, a sort of surrendering. That isn't how I have sex, I have engaged consensual sex, paid for or not.

Rape and abuse is another thing entirely and it's insulting to victims of rape and abuse to throw it around as rape and abuse.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who ever I consent to sex with, partner, lover, client they don't get my body on a plate - it's a 2 way thing with built in boundaries.

 

I'm starting to think perhaps women who think we are victims and raped in the line of our work, they see sex as giving your body to your partner to do as he pleases, a sort of surrendering. That isn't how I have sex, I have engaged consensual sex, paid for or not.

Rape and abuse is another thing entirely and it's insulting to victims of rape and abuse to throw it around as rape and abuse.

 

 

what is the point of sex unless cosensual? where is the fun in sex with a girl who doesnt want to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot wrong with this.

 

 

But now it seems antediluvian that honking a colleague’s breast would barely get you a slapped wrist, let alone a one-way trip to HR. If the allegations against Lord Rennard are to be believed, some men apparently still try to leverage authority over women to grab a sexual thrill. Yet there is almost universal agreement: this is wrong.

 

She starts off by talking about non-sexual sexual assaults in the workplace as if that is comparable to sex work.

 

 

Across Europe it’s [prostitution] is now viewed as mere exploitation

 

In the anti-community (radfems, churches, labour politicians among others) yes. But she doesn't speak for everyone.

 

 

The Nordic model claims success in reducing prostitution because it targets the reduction of demand.

 

The "Nordic model" claims success because they have observed the number of street prostitutes have declined over the past decade and a bit (which may possibly be contributed to the internet). That's the best they have to say. They don't know a thing about what happens indoors and a Google search will reveal plenty of websites with escort contact details for the capital cities of Iceland, Sweden and Norway. And the reason they are there after all these years is because clients in these countries are still booking escorts. The oldest profession continues Nordic model or no Nordic model.

 

It's also worth taking into account these countries are very sparsely populated and they still don't know what goes on indoors. IMO if countries with large densely populated cities like France or England were to try the Nordic model out it would be even more of a failure.

 

 

Sweden has only one quarter of the trafficking cases of next-door Denmark

 

Are we talking about actual confirmed cases of trafficking or just estimates based on some unknown criteria? I'm willing to bet if this is the case it's because in countries with legalized/decriminalized prostitution it is more open and trafficking cases are more easy to spot.

 

 

The leak of an Amnesty International policy document arguing that criminalising paid-for sex was a violation of male human rights was greeted with outrage because

 

Again we have another biased one-sided comment. I see she ignores the fact Amnesty also got a lot of support from those in the industry including sex workers. (Although antis will probably tell us only "pimps" are in support of Amnesty.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arguments against prostitution are entirely disingenuous.

 

It's not about trafficking - otherwise attention would also be drawn to trafficking in other industries.

It's not about safety - otherwise the antis would be arguing for legalisation.

 

No, what we are seeing is a power struggle. The power women traditionally had over their men was sexual. However, the internet has opened up a sexual Disneyland for men. Punting is infinitely easier and more convenient than in the past. Many women like Janice Turner are, and with good reason, terrified they are now redundant. They increasingly have to compete with better looking and more sexually skilled 'rivals'. And why would any man get married these days? So a war on male sexuality has been launched - on prostitution, on web porn, even on silly old Page 3. The aim is for male sexuality to be as suppressed as female sexuality has always been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arguments against prostitution are entirely disingenuous.

 

It's not about trafficking - otherwise attention would also be drawn to trafficking in other industries.

It's not about safety - otherwise the antis would be arguing for legalisation.

 

No, what we are seeing is a power struggle. The power women traditionally had over their men was sexual. However, the internet has opened up a sexual Disneyland for men. Punting is infinitely easier and more convenient than in the past. Many women like Janice Turner are, and with good reason, terrified they are now redundant. They increasingly have to compete with better looking and more sexually skilled 'rivals'. And why would any man get married these days? So a war on male sexuality has been launched - on prostitution, on web porn, even on silly old Page 3. The aim is for male sexuality to be as suppressed as female sexuality has always been.

 

also the anit hookering fems I see look like they have had a bad time with the ugly stick.  No wonder they are scared of their men wandering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone with a Times subscription tell us anything about the comments which presumably follow Janice Turner's article. What's the balance of support and hostility? Any good demolition jobs on her "facts"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A popular argument for laws against prostitution I see over and over is "men don't need sex" or "men shouldn't have a right to buy sex" ("women" or "women's bodies" is often used as a dysphemism in place of "sex")

 

IMO I think that argument is a moral based one by people who just don't like the idea of men paying for sex. Noone has the right to anything sexual without the other person's consent, but if the transaction is between consenting adults then those consenting adults should have the right to make that transaction legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

paywall :(

google "bypass london  times paywall"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone with a Times subscription tell us anything about the comments which presumably follow Janice Turner's article. What's the balance of support and hostility? Any good demolition jobs on her "facts"?

She is  getting a tough time.   Here are the top few by rating:

 

___________________________________________________

Stuart 1 day ago
 
 

Couldn't be bothered to read beyond the halfway mark. As virtually any adult knows, it's not just about men's rights to buy it. It's also about women's rights to sell it, women's rights to buy it, men's rights to buy and sell, and so on. This article it utter pants.

50RecommendReply
 
 
 
Michael Mouse 1 day ago
 
 

 

@Stuart "This article it utter pants"

Yes, the kind of emotive, hysterical, whining, blackmailing drivel more normally associated with the Guardian, packed with loaded terminology, dodgy factoids and the projection of personal views as though they were some kind of general morality.

What free adults do with their bodies (and virtually all of the trafficked, exploited claims have been shown to be false or wildly exaggerated for propaganda purposes), is their affair (no pun intended), in a free society. Self-appointed prudish moralists have neither the right nor the capability to impose their sexual prudishness on free citizens, nor, given that such liberals as the inquisition and the Taliban have variously failed to prevent prostitution, will the self-righteous left have any more success in their po-faced tilting at windmills.

 

22RecommendReply
 
 
 
 
Vicuna 2 days ago
 
 

 

You repeat the usual tosh that paying for sex is buying a woman's body, and that discredits your whole argument.

It is paying for a service.  Nobody ever talks of buying a hairdresser, or a nail bar therapist.

 

30RecommendReply
 
Eric Keeping 1 day ago
 
 

@Vicuna  Agreed. I notice that if it is drugs, the provider is punished and users need rehabilitation, but if it is sex, the users are to be punished and the provider needs rehabilitation. Females are being portrayed as incapable of being held responsible for their actions. And, we forget that sex workers are free to get low paying jobs like the rest of us.

38RecommendReply
 
 
 
 
Rajeev Kapoor 1 day ago
 
 

So do you propose to criminalise the phenomenon of wealthy old men "marrying" attractive young women? Or would you discriminate based on social status of the purchaser?

32RecommendReply
 
 
 
 
Julian Bassett 1 day ago
 
 

Don't agree. If a man and a woman want to make a fully consensual private arrangement, then that is their business, not the State's. The Swedish policy described is illiberal and vindictive.

29RecommendReply
 
 
 
Michael Mouse 1 day ago
 
 

 

@Julian Bassett Not merely illiberal, ideological and vindictive, but as has been repeatedly pointed out, totally unrealistic and likely to cause far more harm than it could conceivably solve.

The road to hell may or may not be paved with good intentions, but it is certainly paved with high-minded, self-admiring pomposity and the self-attribution of good intentions. Coupled of course with deliberate ignoring of the real world and the impact of the law of unintended (or deliberately disregarded), consequences.

 

18RecommendReply
 
 
 
 
Ben Jamin' 2 days ago
 
 

 

85% of women working in Starbucks are foreign. And 89% of women working in fast food outlets said they'd rather be doing something else.

Shock horror!

Yes sex should be free, but so should everything else.

Paying for a de-caff latte demeans everyone involved in this sordid industry.

The vast majority of women working in Starbucks were sexually abused as children. Fact.

 

26RecommendReply
 
 
David Allen 1 day ago
 
 

There is nothing more absurd than liberals and moral relativists braying for moral rectitude after decades of promoting degeneracy.  

23RecommendReply
 
 
 
 
Dr Andrew Price 1 day ago
 
 

The oldest profession. Not going away any time soon I think.

23RecommendReply
 
 
 
 
Stephen, My name is Stephen 1 day ago
 
 

 

Not all men look like Brad Pitt, me or Chris Hemsworth. Prostitution allows the Quasimodos of the world to lay down with the gorgeous and sultry Esmeraldas. Otherwise, they may die without having experienced a strong orgasm courtesy of a hot-bodied woman. And while that might not be so catastrophic, I would say that if the woman is friendly and clean and happy to transact and perhaps even a little kindhearted (as many of them are), and if the man showers first and treats her with the utmost respect, then I'm pretty sure that during those fifteen minutes or so, there will be far, far worse things happening around the world.

It's the exploitation and maltreatment of the women that is absolutely wrong, but the fundamental nature of the service is not inherently evil, misguided or unnecessary.

 

22RecommendReply
 
 
 
 
EnglishRose 2 days ago
 
 

 

I never agree with any Times female writer on internet and sexual issues ever. So don't agree here either.

1. Plenty of women buy sex too although of course not as many as men.

2, It is the one area where women have some leverage over men - we have erotic capital in spades and men don't.  In a sense it is better bargain for a woman to sell sex than to be tied as a housewife living off male earnings in return for cleaning and childcare services for life. The freer better bargain which is much less sexist is the prostitution. To cut off that route in a sense does women down and reduces their power. Men want more sex than women and women use that for economic advantage all the time either in being kept by a man in matrimony or as a live in or live out lover or mistress or by the pure selling of sex.

 

22RecommendReply
 
 
 
 
Mike TC 1 day ago
 
 

Janice Turner often writes good articles with interesting insight but this is just pure puritanical drivel !

21RecommendReply
 
 
 
 
Mike Isaacs 1 day ago
 
 

Ms Turner is deluded if she believes a law banning prostitution will actually have any effect. It will just be pushed underground and "escort" agencies will quadruple increase their takings. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Nordic model" claims success because they have observed the number of street prostitutes have declined over the past decade and a bit (which may possibly be contributed to the internet). That's the best they have to say. They don't know a thing about what happens indoors and a Google search will reveal plenty of websites with escort contact details for the capital cities of Iceland, Sweden and Norway. And the reason they are there after all these years is because clients in these countries are still booking escorts. The oldest profession continues Nordic model or no Nordic model.

The Swedish law seems to have had no effect on the majority of sex workers - those who are off-street. The law does seem to have had an effect on street prostitution, reducing it by half. Some say reduced by 2/3 and some say the numbers have returned to what they were before the law was introduced. In Britain however the number of street girls has gone down much more dramatically since the introduction of ASBOs. It's now quite difficult to find a street girl in London. So if people want to reduce street prostitution (and I'm not sure it is a good thing) then the British model would be the model to follow and no the Swedish one. Why introduce a law which doesn't seem to achieve the results you want?

 

I think that for many sex workers what they do is like waitressing or bar work. It's not the sort of thing you would want to do forever or could continue forever. But it is useful in helping you establish yourself in your 20s if you're going through university or a prolonged internship or if you're trying to get the money together to buy property or start a business. Belle du Jour didn't shout loudly that prostitution is a liberating profession. She was asked by a journalist if she thought it was and she answered in the affermative. It is liberating, like anything that can give you a few thousand pounds to put in the bank while you work out what else you want to do in your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also like the way she tries to paint the French and EU legal movements as a done deal. The French law could end up "parked" in the senate due to unease about the law driving the women away from the police since they can't attract clients if they have close ties to the police. Plus the EU law change movement is simply a proposal by a bunch of radfems which is highly unlikely to pass given (as Barrack says) the power of Germany in EU policy making and their own laws. Plus it wouldn't alter laws in other countries or force them into changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0