The Guardian:radical moment for Britain’s sex workers

[Horizontal pleasures]

Prostitution
A radical moment for Britain’s sex workers
The Commons inquiry into prostitution has recommended legalising brothels and soliciting as quickly as possible. So, what happens now?



External Link/Members Only

Hidden Image/Members Only

[AVGscot]

Probably very little with a right wing moralistic tory government who doesn't care about expert opinion, especially if it contradicts their view.

[Happylad]

Definitely a very clever ploy.

As soon as they legalise brothels, and all independent wgs, HMRC can visit them all and assess them for Income Tax and VAT - should be an enormous boost to the economy, might even help Osborne balance the books by 2020

[SUMO61]

Definitely a very clever ploy.

As soon as they legalise brothels, and all independent wgs, HMRC can visit them all and assess them for Income Tax and VAT - should be an enormous boost to the economy, might even help Osborne balance the books by 2020

And we'd be doing our bit for the economy too , hurrah 

[Marmalade]

I'd say good luck. Judging by previous commons enquiries they could do the opposite.

Remember when it was recommended to legalise soft drugs? They did the opposite. Not only that, they criminalised as yet unknown drugs.

[Marmalade]

Definitely a very clever ploy.

As soon as they legalise brothels, and all independent wgs, HMRC can visit them all and assess them for Income Tax and VAT - should be an enormous boost to the economy, might even help Osborne balance the books by 2020

And put prices up of course.  And demonise all unregistered prossies and knockshops (ie most of the friendly part timers).

[smiths]

Probably very little with a right wing moralistic tory government who doesn't care about expert opinion, especially if it contradicts their view.

As opposed to the last Labour government who with Harriet Harridan brought in the coercion law in 2009/10, and are always banging on about criminalising punters here. In comparison so far the Tories haven't been too worried about it, so in reality its the moralistic left not right.

[smiths]

Prostitution
A radical moment for Britain’s sex workers
The Commons inquiry into prostitution has recommended legalising brothels and soliciting as quickly as possible. So, what happens now?



External Link/Members Only

Hidden Image/Members Only

Probably nothing.

[S.X. MacHine]

I was surprised at the interim recommendation of the Committee to the Home Office to take immediate steps to decriminalise soliciting and to allow non exploitative, small scale brothels. Surprised because the terms of reference made several references to prostitution as 'violence against women perpetrating inequality'. I thought the enquiry was yo be a justification of the whole feminist wish to bring in the controversial 'Swedish Model'.
Brooke Magnanti and Paris Lees seemed to think the same, initially. They gave some fairly stroppy answers to the Committee at first, but came round to the view that, in fact, the MPs were seeking after the truth.
You can see the interviews on line.
Having followed the proceedings, I feel a whole lot better about our parliamentary democracy and the common sense of many of our MPs.
Let us hope our Members of Scottish Parliament show a similar degree of sense when the time comes.; just dinnae hud yer breeth.

[Tricky Dickie]

Illustrated with a 20 year old picture of a phone box. It shows how up to date their thinking is...

[S.X. MacHine]

As opposed to the last Labour government who with Harriet Harridan brought in the coercion law in 2009/10, and are always banging on about criminalising punters here. In comparison so far the Tories haven't been too worried about it, so in reality its the moralistic left not right.

I don't think you can characterise the debate along Tory/Labour lines. The Select Committee was composed of all party affiliations.
Also, Harriet Harman is anti prossie, but Corbyn and Watson are not. I'm sure you'll find similar divisions within the Tories; after all, they are divided about everything else.

[smiths]

I don't think you can characterise the debate along Tory/Labour lines. The Select Committee was composed of all party affiliations.
Also, Harriet Harman is anti prossie, but Corbyn and Watson are not. I'm sure you'll find similar divisions within the Tories; after all, they are divided about everything else.

I was replying to that posters post where they only mentioned Tory right wingers, in fact its been Labour who have called for punters to be criminalised under Harridans crusade. I wasn't referring to the Select Committee in the post.

This looks a good move on the surface though I doubt anything will come of it anytime soon.

[AVGscot]

I was only suggesting that under the current government very little is likely to happen due to this report. I know there are plenty of moralistic arseholes in the labour party as well.

The outcome of the committee is surprising in that, they're actually using common sense, and taking in the views of actual escorts rather than just crazy feminists or junkie street prossies.

[Ben4454]

I was only suggesting that under the current government very little is likely to happen due to this report. I know there are plenty of moralistic arseholes in the labour party as well.

The outcome of the committee is surprising in that, they're actually using common sense, and taking in the views of actual escorts rather than just crazy feminists or junkie street prossies.

Feminists hate punting because it devalues pussy power. When a man can pay for sex and get it elsewhere with money it means a woman cannot manipulate a man with her vagina as much. It basically means women cannot use sex as a weapon. Feminists hate this and they will make up a sob story to the government to get it outlawed. It happened in Sweden. Nothing was based off any real evidence just data made up in the minds of the feminists.

To see how toxic feminists are you just have to look at their recent crusade on women looking too sexy in magazines. Feminists wanted 'bigger' girls in magazines so the average fat girl doesn't have to get off her ass and lose weight. It is nothing but ugly girls trying to increase their sexual market value. They were the ones responsible for getting tits banned in the sun. If you notice it was not men and women it was just womens pictures..

I feel sorry for the men in Sweden who are pretty much ruled by the feminists.

[WhattheFlip]

Funny thing is, you know that in every meeting there'll be on this, there's atleast a couple of MPs, or female MPs whose husbands are, regular visitors to WGs. Or more likely rent boys, weird mosley-style orgies etc! Or people like Whittingdale who had no idea his girlfriend was a hooker (yeah right).
You know that MPs like Harman are in the minority, but they just shout the loudest, and everyone else is too embarassed to do anything about it. Same with the drug thing-most know that things need to change, but know that if they're the campaign leaders, it'll be mocked-up newspaper pictures of them looking stoned with spliffs photoshopped into their mouths. That's one of the very few ways I feel sorry for MPs.
To paraphrase Alan Partridge: "Nobody wants to be tarred with the whore/drugs brush"

[Ali Katt]

Probably very little with a right wing moralistic tory government who doesn't care about expert opinion, especially if it contradicts their view.

Tories aren't a right wing party anymore, the old tories might have been. The English Democrats were formed as they didn't think the current Tories were conservative enough. There's a paperthin difference between Labour, Lib Dems and Tories. They are all pro-corporatist parties, but fascist left.

[Ali Katt]

Feminists hate punting because it devalues pussy power. When a man can pay for sex and get it elsewhere with money it means a woman cannot manipulate a man with her vagina as much. It basically means women cannot use sex as a weapon. Feminists hate this and they will make up a sob story to the government to get it outlawed. It happened in Sweden. Nothing was based off any real evidence just data made up in the minds of the feminists.

To see how toxic feminists are you just have to look at their recent crusade on women looking too sexy in magazines. Feminists wanted 'bigger' girls in magazines so the average fat girl doesn't have to get off her ass and lose weight. It is nothing but ugly girls trying to increase their sexual market value. They were the ones responsible for getting tits banned in the sun. If you notice it was not men and women it was just womens pictures..

I feel sorry for the men in Sweden who are pretty much ruled by the feminists.

I agree with you Ben. It's slightly more complicated than that, IMHO it has nothing to do with pussy power and is more about feminists wanting women to be underpowered, so that they can blame men forever more. A bit like some militant black people purposely look for racism to justify their beliefs. The pussy power thing might exist in cod-feminists who have read a few Germaine Greer books, but are happily married to a man, the likes of Mumsnet. The real feminist like deceased Andrea Dworkin believe even a man having consensual sex with a woman is akin to rape. The irony is feminism oppresses women.

I also agree the campaign for real women in magazines is particularly toxic. I also think telling women size 16 is normal and average is offensive. Why aim lower? Sweden is a separate issue, but their citizens are starting to realise that their cultural experiments aren't working and they have created a fucked up society. Most Western countries are heading the same way, this SJW mentality is incredibly damaging.

[Colston36]

Prostitution
A radical moment for Britain’s sex workers
The Commons inquiry into prostitution has recommended legalising brothels and soliciting as quickly as possible. So, what happens now?



External Link/Members Only

Hidden Image/Members Only

I think this is a bloody good idea. So good it will never get through. Meanwhile in Europe they are planning to do the opposite and criminalise everything. A field day for the Sergei fraternity. Idiots.

[ickydicky]

Feminists hate punting because it devalues pussy power. When a man can pay for sex and get it elsewhere with money it means a woman cannot manipulate a man with her vagina as much. It basically means women cannot use sex as a weapon. Feminists hate this and they will make up a sob story to the government to get it outlawed. It happened in Sweden. Nothing was based off any real evidence just data made up in the minds of the feminists.

To see how toxic feminists are you just have to look at their recent crusade on women looking too sexy in magazines. Feminists wanted 'bigger' girls in magazines so the average fat girl doesn't have to get off her ass and lose weight. It is nothing but ugly girls trying to increase their sexual market value. They were the ones responsible for getting tits banned in the sun. If you notice it was not men and women it was just womens pictures..

I feel sorry for the men in Sweden who are pretty much ruled by the feminists.

great post

[Horizontal pleasures]

who goes in phone boxes any more nowadays?
Superman to change his pants?
Someone who wants a quick pee?

Certainly rarely anyone wanting a punt: they will book you if they catch you copying down a number as soliciting ....


Hidden Image/Members Only

[Ali Katt]

who goes in phone boxes any more nowadays?
Superman to change his pants?
Someone who wants a quick pee?

Certainly rarely anyone wanting a punt: they will book you if they catch you copying down a number as soliciting ....


Hidden Image/Members Only

Most the tart cards are run by EE gangs, many have been charged and banned from using phoneboxes apart from emergency calls. I've never seen tart cards outside London.

[Itsnotshy]

Hope they don't go Swedish model,but I fear SJW,RADFEM lobbby too powerful.I have so far gone 57 years without troubling the police,don't feel I deserve to be labelled a criminal.Most blokes in this hobby perfectly decent gentlemen not abusers.

[Ali Katt]

Hope they don't go Swedish model,but I fear SJW,RADFEM lobbby too powerful.I have so far gone 57 years without troubling the police,don't feel I deserve to be labelled a criminal.Most blokes in this hobby perfectly decent gentlemen not abusers.

Most sensible people don't take the radfems seriously, just a bunch of bitter old lesbians. Then you've got the men that call themselves feminists, emasculated men no woman wants to fuck, and the SJW is a plague, but they are looking really petulant and narrow minded. It's the lobby groups which people need to watch out for, not some Guardian columnist.

[welshman]

I agree with you Ben. It's slightly more complicated than that, IMHO it has nothing to do with pussy power and is more about feminists wanting women to be underpowered, so that they can blame men forever more. A bit like some militant black people purposely look for racism to justify their beliefs. The pussy power thing might exist in cod-feminists who have read a few Germaine Greer books, but are happily married to a man, the likes of Mumsnet. The real feminist like deceased Andrea Dworkin believe even a man having consensual sex with a woman is akin to rape. The irony is feminism oppresses women.

I also agree the campaign for real women in magazines is particularly toxic. I also think telling women size 16 is normal and average is offensive. Why aim lower? Sweden is a separate issue, but their citizens are starting to realise that their cultural experiments aren't working and they have created a fucked up society. Most Western countries are heading the same way, this SJW mentality is incredibly damaging.

Another possible reasons why extreme feminists want to make paying for sex illegal is that it creates an additional criminal offence against men.   If a man was convicted for paying for sex, his life would be ruined because he would loose his job, have a criminal record and all that entails and his name may be end up in the newspapers which would cause shame.  The radical feminists would love it to see this happen to men.  Sex is a strong need in men and making it illegal to pay for sex would seriously reduce the amount of sexual contact available to men.  In view of this, it is not suprising that extreme feminists want to make paying for sex illegal.

[Ali Katt]

Another possible reasons why extreme feminists want to make paying for sex illegal is that it creates an additional criminal offence against men.   If a man was convicted for paying for sex, his life would be ruined because he would loose his job, have a criminal record and all that entails and his name may be end up in the newspapers which would cause shame.  The radical feminists would love it to see this happen to men.  Sex is a strong need in men and making it illegal to pay for sex would seriously reduce the amount of sexual contact available to men.  In view of this, it is not suprising that extreme feminists want to make paying for sex illegal.

I actually never thought of this, no fury like a woman scorned and all that. I'm sure you are right as well, a few years ago feminists had a campaign were they took pictures of men coming out of sex shops and most put their thumbs up and didn't give a toss.

[Ben4454]

I think it also stems from a degree of superiority and not wanting men to have a 'easy ride' or women to be manipulated into it. The thing is it is a woman's choice to sell her body. Feminist women just want other women to follow in their stricter rules. If sex is on tap than it devalues sex and women do not have as much leverage over men.

It is like when two females talk to each other ''make him work for it'' ''do not give it up easy you whore'' etc etc

Or women who completely shun other women who act like 'sluts'. They're trying to raise the value of sex. As a species they have figured out if they control the sex than they control the men and you can make him do anything you want.

As a male species we have figured out that ATTENTION is our power.... this is why I laugh when i see guys give up their attention to women so easily. Even women who act like total cunts men will shower them in their adoration and attention. This is why there are so many timewasters on POF because women adore male attention and it is a addiction. It is what their DNA is craving which is why they work so hard on their bodies.

Nowadays for a attractive female it has become so 'normal' to have male attention that they no longer appreciate it. This is why women have developed so many bad characteristics and evil personalities. It is why movements like MGTOW have come into being. Basically men are saying we can't be bothered anymore and we are doing our own thing in life.

[welshman]

If men paying women for sex is a form of oppression and exploitation, what about gay men who use male escorts. I have never heard anyone say men paying other men for sex is a form of oppression, exploitation and violence. Why is paying for sex only oppression and exploitation when men pay women for sex?

[Horizontal pleasures]

If men paying women for sex is a form of oppression and exploitation, what about gay men who use male escorts. I have never heard anyone say men paying other men for sex is a form of oppression, exploitation and violence. Why is paying for sex only oppression and exploitation when men pay women for sex?

except when it is an MP caught in the act - or was it the Act.

[Ali Katt]

If men paying women for sex is a form of oppression and exploitation, what about gay men who use male escorts. I have never heard anyone say men paying other men for sex is a form of oppression, exploitation and violence. Why is paying for sex only oppression and exploitation when men pay women for sex?

Or even women paying for women. It was like when WH Smiths were having  a clampdown on Lad's mags, they never covered up or mentioned gay magazines like Attitude. If you're a straight male you're an oppressor, any other gender or sexuality you're oppressed.

[Marmalade]

If men paying women for sex is a form of oppression and exploitation, what about gay men who use male escorts. I have never heard anyone say men paying other men for sex is a form of oppression, exploitation and violence. Why is paying for sex only oppression and exploitation when men pay women for sex?

Pretending not to notice if someone is gay is politically correct and gets votes.
Pretending you want "to do something" (anything) about prostitution is politically correct and gets votes.

Logic doesn't come into it at all.

[Ben4454]

Or even women paying for women. It was like when WH Smiths were having  a clampdown on Lad's mags, they never covered up or mentioned gay magazines like Attitude. If you're a straight male you're an oppressor, any other gender or sexuality you're oppressed.

The oppressed will ALWAYS be the future oppressors. Their tactics of getting to the top is reverting to back when they were oppressed and sticking labels on people.

Having a debate with a feminist and you will only be classed as a mysogyonist.

[Itsnotshy]

Trouble with most of us men is we still think 1+1=2 and 2+2=4 ,we still think yes is yes and no is no.Radical feminists and their ilk KNOW that 1+1= whatever they wish it to and that concepts such as yes and no are subjective in their post patriarchal utopia.Don't get me wrong I love women and welcome the possible decriminalisation of their role in our hobby.However don't think for one second that reason,facts or justice will save us blokes from a possible implementation of a sex buyers law.In today's SJW world up is down and down is up,Nuff said.

[Ben4454]

Trouble with most of us men is we still think 1+1=2 and 2+2=4 ,we still think yes is yes and no is no.Radical feminists and their ilk KNOW that 1+1= whatever they wish it to and that concepts such as yes and no are subjective in their post patriarchal utopia.Don't get me wrong I love women and welcome the possible decriminalisation of their role in our hobby.However don't think for one second that reason,facts or justice will save us blokes from a possible implementation of a sex buyers law.In today's SJW world up is down and down is up,Nuff said.

Women focus on the emotional while men focus more on the logical = facts.

There should be no room in politics for irrational emotional decisions. This is what pushed us into a long war with Iraq/afganistan in the first place.

[Marmalade]

The oppressed will ALWAYS be the future oppressors. Their tactics of getting to the top is reverting to back when they were oppressed and sticking labels on people.

Having a debate with a feminist and you will only be classed as a mysogyonist.

True. But not always. Trouble is that the oppressed are often thick as shit and very insular. So even if they somehow get the ability to oppress others they have to impoverish them first. Like prossies to Punters. Israelis to Palestinians. Or BMW drivers hogging a lane on the motorway and driving at 40 miles an hour.

[welshman]

The arguments that paying for sex is a form of oppression an exploitation is full of holes.  For punters paying for sex may the only form of sexual contact available to them because they can't find partners or their partners have gone off sex and they don't want the hassle of an affair. Are the WGs who earn money servicing these punters exploiting them?  Are WGs who earn good money oppressed? 

If being a WG is such a horrible profession and WGs are downtrodden and oppressed, why do so many women work in the industry?  If being a WG is so awful, why is that when I look at the websites of parlours and agencies, I see women who have worked in agencies and parlours for a long time.  Why do women do work in the industry for so long if being a sex worker is so terrible?  Surely if being a sex worker was so awful, hardly women would want to work in the industry.

Extreme feminists argue that paying for sex is a form of oppression, violence and exploitation against women.  How would they define sex?  If man has visits a WG and does not have intercourse, is it still a form of oppression and violence?  For instance, if a punter only has a massage and hand relief, has he committed an act of violence and oppression?  What if a punter pays for service which does not involve direct sexual contact eg asking a WG to talk dirty. 

[Marmalade]

If being a WG is such a horrible profession and WGs are downtrodden and oppressed, why do so many women work in the industry?

Maybe they are downtrodden and oppressed before working as a prostitute. They just feel they have a better excuse afterwards. 

[welshman]

The theory has been expressed on this forum that feminists hate men paying for sex because sex is freely available for men which reduces the power women have over their partners and their ability to manipulate them. This may  apply not just to paying for sex. Porn and strip/ lap dancing clubs provide sexual outlets for men which also reduces the power women have over their partners. This explains why feminists are so against porn and strip/lap dancing clubs. Feminists want to severely restrict the sexual outlets available for men.

[Falstaff]

Women focus on the emotional while men focus more on the logical = facts.

There should be no room in politics for irrational emotional decisions. This is what pushed us into a long war with Iraq/afganistan in the first place.

Great posts on this thread Ben. Strongly agree on much you say.

FWIW I think/hope this new government will have enough on its hands without looking at changing prostitution law.

[Marmalade]

Much as I strongly agree with the points Ben has made I believe that a woman who learns to control and use her emotional capacity as a positive tool is an asset.

My prime example -- and I reluctantly apologise for using the S word -- is the fictional character Captain Kathryn Janeway. The key quality in my opinion is that (unlike others that have been in the role) she is a scientist, yet when solving questions of human relations she uses skills of empathy to further her fact-finding.

The major obstacle for women in politics and business is a cultural lack of experience in doing that. In other words, men have learnt how to do what we do better: women are still on the starting line. The practical difficulty is using women's talents while making sure they don't fuck up with uncontrolled emotion. But one could have said the same about Blair over Iraq: which was an emotional decision based on belief, proved wrong by data not just now but also at the time.

[Ben4454]

Much as I strongly agree with the points Ben has made I believe that a woman who learns to control and use her emotional capacity as a positive tool is an asset.

My prime example -- and I reluctantly apologise for using the S word -- is the fictional character Captain Kathryn Janeway. The key quality in my opinion is that (unlike others that have been in the role) she is a scientist, yet when solving questions of human relations she uses skills of empathy to further her fact-finding.

The major obstacle for women in politics and business is a cultural lack of experience in doing that. In other words, men have learnt how to do what we do better: women are still on the starting line. The practical difficulty is using women's talents while making sure they don't fuck up with uncontrolled emotion. But one could have said the same about Blair over Iraq: which was an emotional decision based on belief, proved wrong by data not just now but also at the time.

I noticed you came up with a fictional character and not any kind of real example 

Yes women can make decisions that are not completely emotional. I just hope we do not get dragged into any new wars on 'fiction' and not on 'facts'. In my opinion Blair is a war criminal.

[Marmalade]

An only slightly different example though is when gut feeling is proved right. In the movie INTERSTELLAR by the brilliant Christopher Nolan, all the available data suggest that the limited fuel should be used to head for a certain planet. The female second in command, based on knowledge gained through emotion, disagrees. The male crew overrule her, saying she is just choosing the other planet to save her ex-boyfriend.

The audience is fooled. What the woman has sensed but couldn't prove is that the man on the data-led planet is a liar and only interested in his own skin. The computed data did not allow for that, treating all apparent facts as "equal."

That is where emotional empathy can be valuable -- as long as the results of the empathetic awareness are viewed unemotionally. That's the difference.