Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
pabulum

Good articles in Friday's Indie.

8 posts in this topic

Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon, author of Prostitution: Sex Works, Policy And Politics, says that Suzanne's case and those of fellow victims and addicts Shelley and Susan are not necessarily typical of the sex industry as a whole.

"Lots of people make the mistake of thinking that drug addicts form the majority of people in the sex industry. They do not. They're a tiny proportion," claims Brooks-Gordon.

more here:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/177895/How-did-these-women-end-up-on-the-streets-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am told there are some good comments on any answers today on radio4. Unfortunately I have rush, so no time to check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Pabs. :)

Excellent piece by India Knight in The Times :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/india_knight/article7140133.ece

In particular -

"It is simply not okay, in an otherwise civilised society, to leave these women to their fate. Murders are seldom sadder than when they are preventable. Blamires, Rushworth and Armitage might be alive today if they had worked in a big, clean, state-sanctioned brothel, with two giant bouncers on the door, panic buttons in the rooms and an in-house programme that weaned women off the class As.

A proper brothel, I mean, that said BROTHEL in big letters on the door

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be the same India Knight who wrote in this Times Online article:

"I found myself strangely moved by the MP Denis MacShane on Newsnight on Thursday. ...MacShane spoke eloquently about the need to prosecute men who pay for sex."

"...Harriet Harman, the women's minister, said: "Do we think it's right in the 21st century that women should be in a sex trade or do we think it's exploitation and should be banned?" Quite right, too."

"Prostitutes are not generally held in high esteem but they are just doing their job, through gritted teeth."

It seems her interview with Belle de Jour may have brought about a road-to-Damascus-style conversion! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This would be the same India Knight who wrote in this Times Online article:

"I found myself strangely moved by the MP Denis MacShane on Newsnight on Thursday. ...MacShane spoke eloquently about the need to prosecute men who pay for sex."

"...Harriet Harman, the women's minister, said: "Do we think it's right in the 21st century that women should be in a sex trade or do we think it's exploitation and should be banned?" Quite right, too."

"Prostitutes are not generally held in high esteem but they are just doing their job, through gritted teeth."

It seems her interview with Belle de Jour may have brought about a road-to-Damascus-style conversion! :rolleyes:

I wouldn't say there's been a huge conversion. Hanving read the original article in its entirety she was saying that MacShane and Harman's argumkents seemed to make sense to her, but the article wasn't in support of their argument. It was the sort of argument that if a man made, he would be accused of being a misogynist. She was basically saying that women are always going to have sex for "benefits". To extend her argument away from premiership footballers, if I were to win the lottery and roll up at a nightclub in my Lamborghini, I'd probably find it fairly easy to pull. I could probably be married within 6 months to an absolute stunner...so since these women are prepared to have roasting sessions with footballers and to get married to someone who's minted, is it any surprise that there are women out there who'll sell themselves by the hour? and do these latter women suddenly become victims who men should be prosecuted for paying? Does THAT make sense?

That's how I read the article anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't say there's been a huge conversion. Hanving read the original article in its entirety she was saying that MacShane and Harman's argumkents seemed to make sense to her, but the article wasn't in support of their argument. It was the sort of argument that if a man made, he would be accused of being a misogynist. She was basically saying that women are always going to have sex for "benefits". To extend her argument away from premiership footballers, if I were to win the lottery and roll up at a nightclub in my Lamborghini, I'd probably find it fairly easy to pull. I could probably be married within 6 months to an absolute stunner...so since these women are prepared to have roasting sessions with footballers and to get married to someone who's minted, is it any surprise that there are women out there who'll sell themselves by the hour? and do these latter women suddenly become victims who men should be prosecuted for paying? Does THAT make sense?

That's how I read the article anyway.

I think India's point -on which she has been consistent in this 2007 article, in her interviews with BdJ and yesterday's piece- is that she sees no reason why more opprobium should be heaped on prostitutes than on women who sleep about free gratis, simply because the former charge and the latter don't. If you are going to sleep about, she suggests, it makes more sense to do it for cash.

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