Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

UKPunting is a free, independent and not-for-profit paid sex buyer site.


Author Topic: Criminalising sex is a dangerous crusade  (Read 1471 times)


Tony Montana

It needs a subscription - can you paraphrase it without infringing copyright

Offline Daffodil

Can't read the link as I think it's daft to pay a subscription for news. It's like paying for porn, there's more than enough of it about for free.

In response to the thread title only, there are many forms of sex that are already criminalised and, far from it being a "dangerous crusade, it's absolutely necessary.

Some examples of sex that is criminalised: sex with children, sex with those who cannot consent, sex with animals, sex with your sister. And a bloody good job too.

Offline Munching32

So how different is it when one sees an escort and the one who sees a prostitute...

Exchange of money takes place in both !!!


Offline Munching32

And are they trying to criminalise seeing a prossie or an escort... as to me both are the same..!!

Offline Steely Dan

Criminalising sex is a dangerous crusade Antonia Senior

 
Published at 12:01AM, June 6 2015

Making it illegal to pay for a prostitute won’t stop the oldest profession. It will go underground and put more women at risk

It doesn’t take long to find a prostitute. Ninety seconds on the internet, and I find a list of 19 women who live within one mile of my suburban house, offering everything from fetish work to adult mothering, whatever that is.

Helpfully, previous punters have left reviews. These are reminiscent of the old brothel guides of the 18th century, but without the wit and charm. Most seem to concentrate on the woman’s ability to provide the Full Girlfriend Experience, or GFE as it seems to be known in this peculiar corner of cyberspace. Many insist that the worker in question enjoyed the sex. Of course she did, dear.

It is a depressing foray. Beautiful young things offer acronyms and pictures of isolated body parts to deluded male and female punters. Yes, women too. The same website provided me details of ten straight male prostitutes within a one-mile radius. Aaron, “a young black stallion”, charges £40 for 15 minutes with the lucky ladies. But if I opted to invite Aaron around for a £40 frolic, should that be a criminal offence? In France, it may soon be illegal to pay for prostitutes. Punters face fines of up to £1,200 and up to six months in jail after an anti-vice bill was revived this week following attempts to kill it off. The Labour MP Fiona Mactaggart proposed an amendment to the Modern Slavery Bill last year, which would have made paying for sex illegal in this country. It didn’t pass.

The stated aim of the French minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem is to “see prostitution disappear”. A laudable aim; as hard to argue against as world peace and kissing kittens. There is a hardening of attitudes to the sex trade in Europe, driven by three factors. The first is a utopian impulse that insists we can eradicate prostitution. The second is a moral crusade. The third is concern for those coerced into selling their bodies.

It is a truism to say prostitution is as old as human history; the temples of early civilisations doubled as brothels and Jesus was forgiving of working girls. But Ms Vallaud-Belkacem hypothesises that if, millennia later, you remove demand, you will destroy supply.

If we’re taking history as a template, can anyone think of an instance in which legal prohibition of something naughty removed, rather than displaced, demand? Humans like sex, and some like to pay for it. I do not have to understand, or condone this, to recognise it as something we have to live with.

But my mild distaste for The Game is another woman’s moral crusade. Ms Vallaud-Belkacem belongs to a tradition that insists all sex workers are victims. This is the feminist paradox: the central tenet of the movement is that women must have the right to make their own decisions. Yet women have an awkward propensity to choose complicity in the exploitation of their bodies. The examples of liberated women behaving in an unliberated way are endless: Page 3, porn, the ambition to marry a footballer, the bikini-clad wife of the tycoon who lets him walk her on a leash like a dog.

My feminist sisters tie themselves in theoretical knots over the paradox. The easiest way to undo this part of the knot is to insist that all female prostitutes are victims — either directly or through the limiting of their life choices by poverty or drug abuse. Never mind that the women themselves, speaking through prostitutes’ collectives, deny they are all victims. Can you successfully ignore all facts that muddy a sexy theory? Welcome to the club of left-wing feminism.

Many women choose to be sex workers. It may be a choice between a low-paid job with long hours, or sex work, but this is still a choice and not an irrational one. Researchers at Leeds University found earlier this year that more than 70 per cent of those who had chosen to do sex work had previously worked in healthcare, childcare or the charity sector — and 38 per cent had university degrees.

Nonetheless, sex work is more dangerous than other jobs. A 2005 study showed that prostitutes were 12 times more likely to be murdered than other women their age. Rape is an occupational hazard.

A proportion of prostitutes are coerced into the game. But how do you differentiate between those who choose the life and those brutalised into it? When does economic migration by a woman who chooses sex work from limited options become trafficked sex slavery? Boundaries are blurred; insisting that they are straight-edged can only lead to poor law-making.

Prostitutes’ rights groups claim that criminalising punters forces sex work underground and makes it more dangerous. Sweden made it illegal to buy sex in 1999, and its government has claimed this has led to a decline in prostitution. Critics say that sex work in Sweden has moved into darker alleys, without declining in any significant way.

Recent figures suggest that 4.2 per cent of British men use prostitutes. In Greater London the figure rises to 8.9 per cent. Depressing statistics. But would we really want scant resources wasted on chasing these punters? What good would it do — and, more to the point, what harm?

We must resist moral crusades against prostitution and attempts to criminalise the profession further. The preoccupation of any legal framework surrounding prostitution must be the safety, health and welfare of the women involved. Prohibition does not help or protect anyone, least of all the women offering a Full Girlfriend Experience and more to 8.9 per cent of the nice, family men in my London nook.


Offline Munching32

Criminalising sex is a dangerous crusade Antonia Senior

 
Published at 12:01AM, June 6 2015

The Labour MP Fiona Mactaggart proposed an amendment to the Modern Slavery Bill last year, which would have made paying for sex illegal in this country. It didn’t pass.


No wonder why the bill didn't pass. The government needs to supply some figures of how much tax do they get from this industry. I mean thinking about the tax to income ratio, an average Escort would be paying a lot of tax. By saying this I am not overlooking the other moral areas, just not including them. And it would be worse if the profession goes underground; too many complications!! it will put the lives at risk at both ends of punting...ie. the punter as well.!!

Offline vt

Sensible stuff...she gets that prohibition will just displace prostitution to a place that will be harder to police and more dangerous for the women involved.

She also highlights the paradoxical absurdity of the left-wing femenist position that women should be allowed to choose what happens to their bodies...as long as their choice accords with their world view!  :rolleyes:

Offline socks

She might come to the right conclusion but her tone is one of reluctant acceptance, rather than an embracing of the joy that prostitution brings. And for that stuck up the arse of her own warped moral compass, I'm out of the fan club. :angry:

Offline Marmite


Recent figures suggest that 4.2 per cent of British men use prostitutes. In Greater London the figure rises to 8.9 per cent.


I do wonder how accurate those figures can be but all in all one of the better articles I have read on the subject.

Offline smiths

Criminalising sex is a dangerous crusade Antonia Senior

 
Published at 12:01AM, June 6 2015

Making it illegal to pay for a prostitute won’t stop the oldest profession. It will go underground and put more women at risk

It doesn’t take long to find a prostitute. Ninety seconds on the internet, and I find a list of 19 women who live within one mile of my suburban house, offering everything from fetish work to adult mothering, whatever that is.

Helpfully, previous punters have left reviews. These are reminiscent of the old brothel guides of the 18th century, but without the wit and charm. Most seem to concentrate on the woman’s ability to provide the Full Girlfriend Experience, or GFE as it seems to be known in this peculiar corner of cyberspace. Many insist that the worker in question enjoyed the sex. Of course she did, dear.

It is a depressing foray. Beautiful young things offer acronyms and pictures of isolated body parts to deluded male and female punters. Yes, women too. The same website provided me details of ten straight male prostitutes within a one-mile radius. Aaron, “a young black stallion”, charges £40 for 15 minutes with the lucky ladies. But if I opted to invite Aaron around for a £40 frolic, should that be a criminal offence? In France, it may soon be illegal to pay for prostitutes. Punters face fines of up to £1,200 and up to six months in jail after an anti-vice bill was revived this week following attempts to kill it off. The Labour MP Fiona Mactaggart proposed an amendment to the Modern Slavery Bill last year, which would have made paying for sex illegal in this country. It didn’t pass.

The stated aim of the French minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem is to “see prostitution disappear”. A laudable aim; as hard to argue against as world peace and kissing kittens. There is a hardening of attitudes to the sex trade in Europe, driven by three factors. The first is a utopian impulse that insists we can eradicate prostitution. The second is a moral crusade. The third is concern for those coerced into selling their bodies.

It is a truism to say prostitution is as old as human history; the temples of early civilisations doubled as brothels and Jesus was forgiving of working girls. But Ms Vallaud-Belkacem hypothesises that if, millennia later, you remove demand, you will destroy supply.

If we’re taking history as a template, can anyone think of an instance in which legal prohibition of something naughty removed, rather than displaced, demand? Humans like sex, and some like to pay for it. I do not have to understand, or condone this, to recognise it as something we have to live with.

But my mild distaste for The Game is another woman’s moral crusade. Ms Vallaud-Belkacem belongs to a tradition that insists all sex workers are victims. This is the feminist paradox: the central tenet of the movement is that women must have the right to make their own decisions. Yet women have an awkward propensity to choose complicity in the exploitation of their bodies. The examples of liberated women behaving in an unliberated way are endless: Page 3, porn, the ambition to marry a footballer, the bikini-clad wife of the tycoon who lets him walk her on a leash like a dog.

My feminist sisters tie themselves in theoretical knots over the paradox. The easiest way to undo this part of the knot is to insist that all female prostitutes are victims — either directly or through the limiting of their life choices by poverty or drug abuse. Never mind that the women themselves, speaking through prostitutes’ collectives, deny they are all victims. Can you successfully ignore all facts that muddy a sexy theory? Welcome to the club of left-wing feminism.

Many women choose to be sex workers. It may be a choice between a low-paid job with long hours, or sex work, but this is still a choice and not an irrational one. Researchers at Leeds University found earlier this year that more than 70 per cent of those who had chosen to do sex work had previously worked in healthcare, childcare or the charity sector — and 38 per cent had university degrees.

Nonetheless, sex work is more dangerous than other jobs. A 2005 study showed that prostitutes were 12 times more likely to be murdered than other women their age. Rape is an occupational hazard.

A proportion of prostitutes are coerced into the game. But how do you differentiate between those who choose the life and those brutalised into it? When does economic migration by a woman who chooses sex work from limited options become trafficked sex slavery? Boundaries are blurred; insisting that they are straight-edged can only lead to poor law-making.

Prostitutes’ rights groups claim that criminalising punters forces sex work underground and makes it more dangerous. Sweden made it illegal to buy sex in 1999, and its government has claimed this has led to a decline in prostitution. Critics say that sex work in Sweden has moved into darker alleys, without declining in any significant way.

Recent figures suggest that 4.2 per cent of British men use prostitutes. In Greater London the figure rises to 8.9 per cent. Depressing statistics. But would we really want scant resources wasted on chasing these punters? What good would it do — and, more to the point, what harm?

We must resist moral crusades against prostitution and attempts to criminalise the profession further. The preoccupation of any legal framework surrounding prostitution must be the safety, health and welfare of the women involved. Prohibition does not help or protect anyone, least of all the women offering a Full Girlfriend Experience and more to 8.9 per cent of the nice, family men in my London nook.

I agree with her overall view, criminalising the punter WONT stop prostitution, it cant be stopped in a society like ours is at present, BUT it would drive it underground making it less safe for WGs and punters. Now the femi-nazis are fully aware of this but it seems they accept their would be the collateral damage of more WGs being in more danger which is very irresponsible of them in my view.

I don't agree with so called stats about punting because some if not many punters would never admit they were punters. Yes criminalising sex IS a dangerous crusade but its a crusade led by people like Harriet Harridan, McTaggart and Julie Bindel to name a few that aren't interested in the ACTUAL FACTS only in their goal of criminalising punters. These people think they know best and wish to impose THEIR morality on to WGs and punters. My response to that is I have my own morality and don't need theirs so they can stick it up their arses.

Offline maxQ

I do wonder how accurate those figures can be but all in all one of the better articles I have read on the subject.

those numbers can't be right, less than 10%, bullshit

if I was to use my friends as a sample its closer to 90%

Offline socks

I agree with her overall view, criminalising the punter WONT stop prostitution,


I don't - I agree with her conclusion but the whole basis of her argument is one founded on prostitution being a problem that is mitigated against by not criminalising it, as that would make it worse for the providers. I think prostitution is fucking great. Things that should be criminalised about prostitution already are and they apply to that line of work/service just like any other, like not being trafficked, abused, assaulted etc. As far as I am concerned even the thought of outlawing prostitution is as ridiculous as making any other employment like plumbing, hairdressing, gardening, etc etc illegal.

You're right smiths "... These people think they know best and wish to impose THEIR morality on to WGs and punters. My response to that is I have my own morality and don't need theirs so they can stick it up their arses."
« Last Edit: June 07, 2015, 01:21:21 PM by socks »


Latest videos on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

Latest images on UKEscorting.com (free site!)