Plain Joe

Why HHs law is folly

13 posts in this topic

This is bad legislation for so many reasons, but chiefly because it will fail to hit the target it seeks. The official reasoning behind the proposed new law, is that by killing off the demand you kill the crime. The flaw in this is obvious, Prostitution being the oldest profession in the world, some men will always be willing to pay for sex, no matter what the risks, and some women will always be willing to trade it. So demand may die off a bit, but it will still exist, and so will the demand for trafficking. A lot of men, assuming the police will find the time, will be arrested, criminalized and perhaps even jailed. Will this help the police catch those doing the trafficking ? Of course not, how could it?

It is a discriminatory law, by introducing the concept of strict liability, Prostitution, at least where a man pays a woman for sex, is concerned is effectively outlawed. For how can a man possibility know for certain that a woman has not been trafficked. So a man using paid sex in this way will always have the fear of prosecution. But because it is unlikely that a man will trafficked for sex, a woman using a male "escort" will be free from fear of prosecution. So it will be perfectly okay for a woman to pay for sex but not for a man.

But since men are much more likely than women to use paid sex, it is in effect an attempt to eradicate prostitution. This is a moral issue and the government should have no business in becoming the guardian of the nations morals..

It makes the industry more dangerous, much demand will switch from the relative safety of the woman's preferred place of work, a place she can have some control, a flat she rents for example, where the police may or may not be watching for easy victims, to a clients hotel room, private house or car, where it will be much more difficult to monitor or control.

Of course sex trafficking is a serious and despicable practice but this legislation will do next to nothing to stop this practice. I feel a lot more could have been gained by recognition of paid sex as a fact of life and looking at ways to control it rather than criminalize.

One further thought, If this law is passed, it should not be too long before we see M.P.s, Civil Servants, Judges and Policemen caught out. Maybe there is some merit in this legislation after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The type of feminist like Harriet Harman and Julie Bindel don't listen to women. Their type of feminism evolved from Marxist thought in the 60s and 70s and is just as useless in helping people to have happier lives.

Imagine what it would be like to be a sex worker if this law comes in. Half of her clients, the nicer law-abiding half, would disappear. She would have to bring down her prices because there would be the same number of women competing for fewer clients. She would probably have to work longer hours or go to less safe places to avoid detection by the police.

Some women might give up, but the most vulnerable will not. They will be at greater danger of violence. This law will force prostitution further underground where it will get worse and make it more difficult for people to help them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People like Harmful, Bindel and McTaggart give feminism a bad name. They're like fundamentalists who've twisted and corrupted and cherry-picked certain religions to serve their own agendas, like the Spanish Inquisition and Al Qaeda.

It's always ironic that people who do that are called fundamentalists when they've forgotten or misinterpreted the fundamentals of the ideology they're hijacking.

Feminism is not about hating men or tarring them all with the same brush as exploitative scumbags who will stop at nothing to get sex. And it's not about denying that (GASP!) women can enjoy sex.

These particular zealots forget or ignore the fact that feminism is about being your own person and not being held back by gender expectations, about building your own future and being entrepreneurial and about making the decisions about your own body and sexuality.

It's about putting a value on your own right to choose and not be herded around like a sheep.

Maybe they should all re-read some Orwell, Animal Farm and 1984 in particular. Four legs good, two legs bad, some animals are more equal than others etc.

So many sensible feminists (male and female) live in the real world and not in the poisoned fantasy bubble where sex equals abuse or violence or theft and where women can only be seen as vicitms instead of full-blooded people with healthy appetites and who can look after themselves as well as look out for women in circumstances that take their power away such as trafficking and being pimped.

Self-sufficient WGs and aware compassionate clients can only help the trapped women if we can see where they are. Shame on Harman for trying to make everyone as blind as she is. It's enough to make me vote Tory.

You don't enjoy sex do you, I am really? :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The type of feminist like Harriet Harman and Julie Bindel don't listen to women. Their type of feminism evolved from Marxist thought in the 60s and 70s and is just as useless in helping people to have happier lives.

Imagine what it would be like to be a sex worker if this law comes in. Half of her clients, the nicer law-abiding half, would disappear. She would have to bring down her prices because there would be the same number of women competing for fewer clients. She would probably have to work longer hours or go to less safe places to avoid detection by the police.

Some women might give up, but the most vulnerable will not. They will be at greater danger of violence. This law will force prostitution further underground where it will get worse and make it more difficult for people to help them.

An excellent and accurate post, that sums up the utter stupidity of this government, and its proposed new laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More on feminists and paid sex .......

Germaine Greer on Have I Got News For You this week :

"the poor old Prostitutes' Collective have been flat out all week trying to talk sense to people......."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fqpyz/Have_I_Got_News_for_You_Series_36_Episode_6/

And we need the expert here, we need Angus ...

You got to feel sorry for women who have to exploit their naked bodies to raise money, said one prostitute flicking through the WI calendar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You got to feel sorry for women who have to exploit their naked bodies to raise money, said one prostitute flicking through the WI calendar.

PMSL, I like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is bad legislation for so many reasons, but chiefly because it will fail to hit the target it seeks. The official reasoning behind the proposed new law, is that by killing off the demand you kill the crime. The flaw in this is obvious, Prostitution being the oldest profession in the world, some men will always be willing to pay for sex, no matter what the risks, and some women will always be willing to trade it. So demand may die off a bit, but it will still exist, and so will the demand for trafficking. A lot of men, assuming the police will find the time, will be arrested, criminalized and perhaps even jailed. Will this help the police catch those doing the trafficking ? Of course not, how could it?

It is a discriminatory law, by introducing the concept of strict liability, Prostitution, at least where a man pays a woman for sex, is concerned is effectively outlawed. For how can a man possibility know for certain that a woman has not been trafficked. So a man using paid sex in this way will always have the fear of prosecution. But because it is unlikely that a man will trafficked for sex, a woman using a male "escort" will be free from fear of prosecution. So it will be perfectly okay for a woman to pay for sex but not for a man.

But since men are much more likely than women to use paid sex, it is in effect an attempt to eradicate prostitution. This is a moral issue and the government should have no business in becoming the guardian of the nations morals..

It makes the industry more dangerous, much demand will switch from the relative safety of the woman's preferred place of work, a place she can have some control, a flat she rents for example, where the police may or may not be watching for easy victims, to a clients hotel room, private house or car, where it will be much more difficult to monitor or control.

Of course sex trafficking is a serious and despicable practice but this legislation will do next to nothing to stop this practice. I feel a lot more could have been gained by recognition of paid sex as a fact of life and looking at ways to control it rather than criminalize.

One further thought, If this law is passed, it should not be too long before we see M.P.s, Civil Servants, Judges and Policemen caught out. Maybe there is some merit in this legislation after all.

Everything you say is accurate and well stated. You do not however say anything that any body, living in the 'real world', does not already know. Unfortunately a proportion of this governments ministers are driven by their own ideologies, at the expense of their individual integrity. It is irrelevant that an ideology is ineffective, and is both impractical to implement, and to enforce, provided it accords with their mindsets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything you say is accurate and well stated. You do not however say anything that any body, living in the 'real world', does not already know. Unfortunately a proportion of this governments ministers are driven by their own ideologies, at the expense of their individual integrity. It is irrelevant that an ideology is ineffective, and is both impractical to implement, and to enforce, provided it accords with their mindsets.

Yeah! I know about the cynicism of our elected representatives. But I am also sure that many of them do not live in the "real world" and this is part of the problem as well. It is also the general ignorance and indifference of the voting public and I am sure that HH and Jacqui Smith et al will rely on this. So lets challenge their mindsets, or at least those around them. Maybe if enough people, groups, interested parties wrote in to MPs, papers etc, pointing out the sheer stupidity of this proposed damaging and dangerous legislation, perhaps we can change enough minds to make a difference and may even plant a seed of doubt about their electorability at the next election if they continue to act purely out of political doctrine than sense. Perhaps! but my own cynicism tells me that apathy will probably rule and not enough people will bother. For those that read this board, how much do you care? Are you motivated enough to make a protest? or do you just meekly give in and just accept unjust, misguided, legislation with all the problems it may bring and accept without a fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An article in The Economist that our legislators would do well to ponder>

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12708142

It makes the point that anything that tends to criminalise the ambient of a sex worker will also make her more vulnerable. And the last paragraph also suggests how difficult it is to define in law who is living off their earnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a regrettable fact of modern political life is that Governments/governing parties become increasingly insulated from the electorate spending more and more time living a highly atypical way of life in their own "bubble" with policy wonks and wannabes whispering ******* in their ears.

This problem gets worse the longer any given party has is in power. The Poll Tax was dreamt up by a handful of characters in the Tory Party after they'd already been in power for two terms. John Major went on to privatise the railways during a fourth consecutive term of Tory Government.

We are now well into the third consecutive term of "New Labour". I'm getting ready to be on the receiving end of some pretty ill-thought out legislation, whether it relates to "punting" or other matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is bad legislation for so many reasons, but chiefly because it will fail to hit the target it seeks. The official reasoning behind the proposed new law, is that by killing off the demand you kill the crime. The flaw in this is obvious, Prostitution being the oldest profession in the world, some men will always be willing to pay for sex, no matter what the risks, and some women will always be willing to trade it. So demand may die off a bit, but it will still exist, and so will the demand for trafficking. A lot of men, assuming the police will find the time, will be arrested, criminalized and perhaps even jailed. Will this help the police catch those doing the trafficking ? Of course not, how could it?

It is a discriminatory law, by introducing the concept of strict liability, Prostitution, at least where a man pays a woman for sex, is concerned is effectively outlawed. For how can a man possibility know for certain that a woman has not been trafficked. So a man using paid sex in this way will always have the fear of prosecution. But because it is unlikely that a man will trafficked for sex, a woman using a male "escort" will be free from fear of prosecution. So it will be perfectly okay for a woman to pay for sex but not for a man.

But since men are much more likely than women to use paid sex, it is in effect an attempt to eradicate prostitution. This is a moral issue and the government should have no business in becoming the guardian of the nations morals..

It makes the industry more dangerous, much demand will switch from the relative safety of the woman's preferred place of work, a place she can have some control, a flat she rents for example, where the police may or may not be watching for easy victims, to a clients hotel room, private house or car, where it will be much more difficult to monitor or control.

Of course sex trafficking is a serious and despicable practice but this legislation will do next to nothing to stop this practice. I feel a lot more could have been gained by recognition of paid sex as a fact of life and looking at ways to control it rather than criminalize.

One further thought, If this law is passed, it should not be too long before we see M.P.s, Civil Servants, Judges and Policemen caught out. Maybe there is some merit in this legislation after all.

No, your wrong, but that is what they want us to believe.... and it looks like you have fallen for the lies. They want to stop men paying girls for sex.... any fool can see that it has very little to do with trafficing... They do not like the idea that men get easy sex and they hate it that ladies can get good wages for the work they do. They want us to stay down where they think we belong... Its all about control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... it is in effect an attempt to eradicate prostitution. This is a moral issue and the government should have no business in becoming the guardian of the nations morals.

Yep. It's the feminazis, trying to rule the world and make everyone, men and women, live the way they tell us to.

Of course sex trafficking is a serious and despicable practice but this legislation will do next to nothing to stop this practice. I feel a lot more could have been gained by recognition of paid sex as a fact of life and looking at ways to control it rather than criminalize.

Indeed. Prohibition doesn't work if people want to carry on doing it, as has been proven by the experiences with alcohol and other drugs. Of course there are problems with paid sex, trafficking being one, just as there are problems in every area of society but simply banning things doesn't make the problems go away.

One further thought, If this law is passed, it should not be too long before we see M.P.s, Civil Servants, Judges and Policemen caught out. Maybe there is some merit in this legislation after all.

Hmmm. I know what you mean but whether or not we'd ever see M.P.s, Civil Servants, Judges and Policemen caught out is another question. PC Plod busts a hooker, finds a High Court Judge having fun and it'd be "Oh, sorry, Your Honour, we'll just drive around the block until you've got dressed and gone home!" :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, your wrong, but that is what they want us to believe.... and it looks like you have fallen for the lies. They want to stop men paying girls for sex.... any fool can see that it has very little to do with trafficing... They do not like the idea that men get easy sex and they hate it that ladies can get good wages for the work they do. They want us to stay down where they think we belong... Its all about control.

If you re-read my second paragraph, you will see that is more or less what I said, particularly with the words " It is in effect an attempt to eradicate prostitution"

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