# sex trafficking? what sex trafficking?



## Pickman's model (Oct 20, 2009)

> The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country.
> 
> The failure has been disclosed by a Guardian investigation which also suggests that the scale of and nature of sex trafficking into the UK has been exaggerated by politicians and media.
> 
> Current and former ministers have claimed that thousands of women have been imported into the UK and forced to work as sex slaves, but most of these statements were either based on distortions of quoted sources or fabrications without any source at all.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails

fucking hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds down the drain to prove what i suspected.


----------



## Haller (Oct 20, 2009)

And these were the distortions and fabrications that the government was citing as a reason why prostitution might have to be made illegal.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 20, 2009)

I'm not remotely surprised by this.

As a story it was too juicy and always verged on some of the phenomena associated with old myths about 'White Slavery' so that it never quite rang true.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 20, 2009)

That's really good investigative journalism by The Guardian. Well bloody done.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

Grauniad said:
			
		

> The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country.



The fact that they've not been able to find any traffickers doesn't of course mean that it's not happening. I suspect finding victims of the trade that will speak out is quite difficult - in fear of retaliation by organised trafficking gangs, worried about being deported, etc.

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/20/sex-trafficking-inquiry-nick-davies:


> Demolishing police figures does not prove that trafficking into the sex trade is so minuscule that it doesn't matter.


----------



## agricola (Oct 20, 2009)

An odd article this.  

For a start, even the Guardian in that article acknowledge that it does go on and that people have been convicted of it in the past (indeed, they have reported it themselves in the past).  However, in highlighting the link between the political pressure on the police and government (as the result of the proposed change in the law, discussed on Urban here), they do make a valuable point and one that deserves to be highlighted, especially as the incredibly dangerous bill in question is still making its way through the legislative process.


----------



## XR75 (Oct 20, 2009)

stephj said:


> from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/20/sex-trafficking-inquiry-nick-davies:



The boy who cried wolf or should I say the bogus statistics apologist who cried trafficked sex slaves.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 20, 2009)

Are there people here saying that there aren't any women and girls who have been brought in to this country and then forced into servitude to be sex workers? All credit to the Guardian for this reporting, and it is good news, but the glee with which some people are using this to attack a Labour government which has made serious efforts to tackle what we now know might well be a less serious problem than was originally thought is a bit sickening.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> Are there people here saying that there aren't any women and girls who have been brought in to this country and then forced into servitude to be sex workers? All credit to the Guardian for this reporting, and it is good news, but the glee with which some people are using this to attack a Labour government which has made serious efforts to tackle what we now know might well be a less serious problem than was originally thought is a bit sickening.



This.

It reminds me of the comments so often made on the Daily Fail where regardless of the subject, somebody always likes to make it into an attack on the Labour Government.

Very lazy indeed.

If the figures can be trusted, then it may be that the problems of sex trafficking might not be as bad as thought, but there seems to be a hell of a lot of charities and refuge's taking in women that are trying to escape sex trafficking. For that reason, I'm dubious just to accept that because a Grauniad investigation hasn't uncovered anything conclusive in figures, then it somehow isn't happening.


----------



## trabuquera (Oct 20, 2009)

chaps, surely the hint is in the original story:
"The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single *person who had forced anybody into prostitution *". Note that it DOES NOT say "failed to find anyone *who had been forced* into prostitution."

UK Government using shaky evidence in grandstanding speeches to the media and misspending too much money on an investigation? Of course - that's business as usual, and might be grounds to get indignant if you're gratified by that sort of thing. But "no detected traffickers yet" most certainly does not equal "no trafficked women in the UK".

There are, ooooh, about a million reasons why even 'the biggest single investigation' would not actually result in any traffickers being busted - no, not even one - and those reasons include mortal fear on the part of the trafficked, use of fake identities, insulating layers of 'management' between trafficking 'kingpins' and trafficked women, problems in evidence, corruption in countries of origin, poor communication between welfare workers, the police, the CPS, etc.


----------



## untethered (Oct 20, 2009)

If the government were serious about curbing prostition they'd take a zero-tolerance approach and lock up everyone involved: the prostitutes, their clients, the pimps, the landlords, the newspapers, websites and other places that carry their advertising.

Of course they're not really that bothered, which is why they're happy for the country to continue to be a moral sewer.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

untethered said:


> Of course they're not really that bothered, which is why they're happy for the country to continue to be a moral sewer.







untethered said:


> If the government were serious about curbing prostition they'd take a zero-tolerance approach and lock up everyone involved: the prostitutes,
> ...



Great idea, further criminalise and marginalise sex workers!


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 20, 2009)

I agree with the sensible people in the middle of this thread. 

59 convictions suggests a problem worthy of attention and that's just the apex of the levels of coercion and exploitation associated with prostitution. Thank god its not any bigger.

I totally agree its no reason to enact law that penalises prostitutes.

There is though in my mind something immoral in paying to have sex with someone, who for whatever reason, drugs, poverty, trafficking, presents dubious consent. That's not gone away and I'm not sure that many prostitutes are outside of that list.


----------



## untethered (Oct 20, 2009)

stephj said:


> Great idea, further criminalise and marginalise sex workers!



It's reasonable to think that someone who persistently defies social conventions regarding the nature of sex and relationships is "marginalising" themselves.

Here's an idea: Why don't people stop selling and buying sex?


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 20, 2009)

untethered said:


> Here's an idea: Why don't people stop selling and buying sex?



And just point to an era in human history when they haven't ?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 20, 2009)

untethered said:


> It's reasonable to think that someone who persistently defies social conventions regarding the nature of sex and relationships is "marginalising" themselves.
> 
> Here's an idea: Why don't people stop selling and buying sex?



Yes why don't they! 

But why stop there? Can't people just stop doing _anything_ that's wrong!

It's so unfair and plain _wrong_.


----------



## untethered (Oct 20, 2009)

mentalchik said:


> And just point to an era in human history when they haven't ?



Point to an era in human history when the government has been serious about stopping it.

But your point is a dismal one anyway. We should oppose things that are wrong rather than wring our hands and accept that it will always happen.

Frankly, every prostitute and every client sitting in a prison cell is a victory for decent society.


----------



## untethered (Oct 20, 2009)

Mr Moose said:


> Yes why don't they!
> 
> But why stop there? Can't people just stop doing _anything_ that's wrong!
> 
> It's so unfair and plain _wrong_.



Alternatively you could engage with the point in a sensible fashion.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

untethered said:


> It's reasonable to think that someone who persistently defies social conventions regarding the nature of sex and relationships is "marginalising" themselves.



By whose 'social conventions'?

And what would you consider as being included/exempt when you refer to the 'nature of sex and relationships'?


----------



## untethered (Oct 20, 2009)

stephj said:


> By whose 'social conventions'?



Do you buy or sell sex? Who else here does?



stephj said:


> And what would you consider as being included/exempt when you refer to the 'nature of sex and relationships'?



We're talking about prostitution. If you want to address other aspects of human sexual behaviour perhaps you could start threads about them.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

untethered said:


> Do you buy or sell sex? Who else here does?



No to the first point, although you've not answered my question:

By whose 'social conventions'?



untethered said:


> We're talking about prostitution. If you want to address other aspects of human sexual behaviour perhaps you could start threads about them.



I'm not bothered about other aspects of human sexual behaviour, it was YOU that made the somewhat intriguing comment, so hence I asked you about it.

What do you think will be achieved by trying to lock up women sex working? Many of those that are co-erced by pimps and gangs. Do you see these women as criminals by default?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 20, 2009)

untethered said:


> Alternatively you could engage with the point in a sensible fashion.



When you do I will.

Sure people don't lose their moral responsibility when they become prostitutes, but it must be a long, long road to get there that perhaps you'd have to travel to really understand. Whatever the right approach is locking them up isn't it.

Save your ire for the men that use them.


----------



## untethered (Oct 20, 2009)

stephj said:


> No to the first point, although you've not answered my question:
> 
> By whose 'social conventions'?



Isn't the answer to that in the definition of those words?



stephj said:


> What do you think will be achieved by trying to lock up women sex working?



It'll stop them doing it, oddly enough.



stephj said:


> Many of those that are co-erced by pimps and gangs. Do you see these women as criminals by default?



That should be decided in each individual case. Substantial coercion could be a statutory defence. It's not something that should argue against the principle of criminalising prostitution.


----------



## dylans (Oct 20, 2009)

How anti trafficking laws are used to criminalise and abuse Cambodian Sex Workers. 
Video by Cambodian sex workers

http://www.channels.com/episodes/show/3402318/No-Exit-News-MTV-and-the-trafficking-law-in-Cambodia


----------



## untethered (Oct 20, 2009)

Mr Moose said:


> Save your ire for the men that use them.



I'll direct my ire at everyone that's letting the side down. People that choose to become prostitutes deserve just as much ire as their clients and should be treated equally harshly.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

untethered said:


> It'll stop them doing it, oddly enough.



Will it? What are often the root causes of those entering into sex work? Purely to make a lot of money or chosen lifestyle? Hardly.



untethered said:


> That should be decided in each individual case. Substantial coercion could be a statutory defence. It's not something that should argue against the principle of criminalising prostitution.



I'm intrigued that you think that criminalising prostitution should be focused around criminalising those caught up in it? (the sex workers).

Criminalising those who try and buy sex, and those who try and co-erce women into selling it are the ones that should be criminalised, in my personal view. Sex workers often need support and alternatives, not being banged up and further criminalised. It'll probably lead them back onto the street again.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 20, 2009)

untethered said:


> I'll direct my ire at everyone that's letting the side down.



 Frame that and look at it again in 10 years time when you've grown up.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

untethered said:


> I'll direct my ire at everyone that's letting the side down. People that choose to become prostitutes deserve just as much ire as their clients and should be treated equally harshly.



Well, I think there's little point in discussing with you.

'Letting the side down' - who's side?! Are there sides?

I don't see many convincing arguments.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 20, 2009)

I have been ridiculed and vilified on Urban for my take on "trafficking" (and prostitution in general).

I am pro-choice on prostitution and _completely_ anti-trafficking - the vast, _vast_ majority of which is for general, unskilled labour.

And I have argued forever that the _genuine_ trafficking of unwilling people into prostitution is miniscule.

In this case, after many months of the intensive, focussed and coordinated work of 55 different police forces accross the UK, thousands of raids and over 500 arrests ..... of the fifteen convictions secured for "trafficking", ten were based on the (weird UK,) law that allows convictions for "trafficking", where the prostitutes involved were willing conspiritors in their "trafficking".

Wake up!

There's nothing wrong with prostitution, nor with those who choose to engage in it, despite the "moral panic" that surrounds it - it's an old and (generally) honourable profession - and the "moral  panic" around "people trafficking" should be focussed where it's needed; trafficking cheap labour.

The policy emphasis _must_ be upon protecting and supporting sex workers and _not_ upon seeking demons where few lurk.

Yes, people trafficking is vile, but most is about cheap labour - very few people need to be genuinely "trafficked" into prostitution, the monetary rewards are sufficient to ensure a vast and willing influx of participants.

And the idea that someone can be convicted of "trafficking" when all the supposedly "trafficked" people are complicit in the crime seems like insanity to me.

It's moralistic nonsense of the worst sort. Trying to pass legislation to curb supposedly "immoral" behaviour conducted between/among consenting adults is insane, much like putting people in jail for up to five years for simple  possession of small amounts of cannabis, while 9,000+ die in the UK each year _directly_ from overindulging in alcohol (and that is "direct", not including drink driving or alcohol related violence).

"Trafficking" related to prostitution is a miniscule problem, particularly when compared with people trafficked into the general job market. Intimidation and volence are rife in the _real_ trafficking arena and yet everyone seems to ignore this and focus on prostitution.

I believe this is driven by a moralistic agenda and is in danger of trivialising and distracting attention from the very genuine trafficking that does occur.

The vast, vast, VAST majority of prostitutes have chosen this work because it is far, far, FAR more lucrative than _anything_ else they can do. We should let them get on with it, support them, and focus "trafficking" enforcement efforts on those many tens of thousands of genuinelly trafficked workers who are forced, against their will, into hard labour for little more than thruppence a day.

Talk about missing the point!






Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 20, 2009)

stephj said:


> Criminalising those who try and buy sex, ... should be criminalised,




Don't be stupid.






> Sex workers often need support and alternatives, not being banged up and further criminalised. It'll probably lead them back onto the street again.



Agreed!



Woof


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 20, 2009)

Are you trying to tell us that most prostitutes would choose prostitution if they were off the drugs and presented with a reasonable basket of other choices equally paid?

That's got to be enough smilies btw.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> I have been ridiculed and vilified on Urban for my take on "trafficking" (and prostitution in general).
> 
> I am pro-choice on prostitution and _completely_ anti-trafficking - the vast, _vast_ majority of which is for general, unskilled labour.
> 
> ...



I guess we'll have to differ on the criminalising those that buy it thing 

My principal concern I guess, is that ensuring that sex workers are there not because they are trapped into it - including the trafficking, pimp/gang, drug dependency, etc. issues. I'm aware that some choose it and do well from it.

I suppose I'm personally very uncomfortable with anyone buying sex from someone else, not in a sex work/'prostitution' is fundamentally wrong/immoral way, moreover I don't like the idea of commoditising/marketisation of the human body. At the same time, it looks like I completely disagree with _untethered_ here too!


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 20, 2009)

dylans said:


> How anti trafficking laws are used to criminalise and abuse Cambodian Sex Workers.
> Video by Cambodian sex workers
> 
> http://www.channels.com/episodes/show/3402318/No-Exit-News-MTV-and-the-trafficking-law-in-Cambodia



Here we go again, eh, Dylan?

When will people wake up?



The "War on Trafficking", is to sex workers (just trying to feed their kids and get on with life,) as the "War on Terror" is to innocent Iraqis and Afghanis (just trying to feed their kids and get on with life).


Wake up peeps, the person you are looking for is not here!




Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 20, 2009)

Mr Moose said:


> Are you trying to tell us that most prostitutes would choose prostitution if they were off the drugs and presented with a reasonable basket of other choices equally paid?
> 
> That's got to be enough smilies btw.



Most would prefer investment bankers' bonuses - were it possible, as would I.

That's irrelevant.

And to suggest that most prostitutes are "on the drugs", is offensive.

For the vast majority, it's just a job - and a far better, far more flexible and FAR more lucrative one than their other options.

By all means, focus your attention on problematic drug users if that is your emotional emphasis (I'm all for better provision for this group,) but don't insult prostitutes with your misguided concept that "most" are doing anything other than making a rational choice.




Woof


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 20, 2009)

It's one thing to be anti-criminalisation and another to bang a drum for it. 

I wouldn't want to encourage anyone into it anymore than I'd want them to have to run the gauntlet to do it.

Only in a perfect world could it really be a 'choice'.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 20, 2009)

The whole "trafficking" thing, when it comes to prostitution, is not far from the whole "red under the bed" thing when it was communism  in the USA in the 1950's.

It's a smokescreen, a diversion, a moral panic.

Global prostitution is HUGE.

Sex trafficking is _miniscule_, it's a distraction.

Focus on the _real_ cheap-labour trafficking....


....Oh, and the million dead civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.





Woof


----------



## dylans (Oct 20, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Here we go again, eh, Dylan?
> 
> When will people wake up?
> 
> ...



Absolutely. Trafficking is a myth that is being used to criminalise sex workers.

 It is interesting that with you as the sole exception, everyone else on this thread completely ignored that post. The only post on here where sex workers voices are actually heard.  WATCH THE MOVIE. Trafficking laws are being used to criminalise, arrest, rob and rape sex workers all in the name of saving them.
http://www.channels.com/episodes/show/3402318/No-Exit-News-MTV-and-the-trafficking-law-in-Cambodia


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 20, 2009)

Mr Moose said:


> It's one thing to be anti-criminalisation and another to bang a drum for it.



I respect peoples choices. I'm banging a drum for those that make the choice.




> I wouldn't want to encourage anyone into it anymore than I'd want them to have to run the gauntlet to do it.



I agree.

Freedom of choice.

As long as no one is harmed, it's just another transaction - I'll fuck you if you fix my boiler (or give my daughter _really_ nice haircuts for the next two months).





> Only in a perfect world could it really be a 'choice'.



In a "perfect world", we'd all have bakers bonuses and it wouldn't fucking matter.


In the meantime......


....You go ahead and fix boilers or give haircuts if that's what suits you.


fair?



Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 20, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> In a "perfect world", we'd all have *bakers* bonuses and it wouldn't fucking matter.



Ummmmmm!

Does kneading dough _really_ generate that much dough?


Maybe not.



Woof


----------



## agricola (Oct 20, 2009)

It is somewhat naive to suggest that even a sizeable minority of sex-workers do so purely out of choice - there is usually some form of compulsion involved, be it financial, addiction to various substances or the physical compulsion of a trafficker / pimp.  This is even more true when one considers those most at risk.

That doesnt justify what has been done (or what Labour are trying to do) to deal with the problem, but we should not pretend that the situation of prostitutes is all sweetness and light.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Oct 20, 2009)

Jessiedog speaks a lot of sense here


----------



## dylans (Oct 20, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> Jessiedog speaks a lot of sense here



Hallelujah 
As Jessiedog says, some of us have been ridiculed and insulted for taking this position but the truth is "trafficking" is a myth. It is a myth that reduces migrant workers to "victims" in need of "saving" where in reality sex workers are workers who need rights. 

In developing countries US sponsored anti trafficking laws are being used to criminalise sex workers, particularly migrant sex workers. Brothels are closed, forcing women to work in dangerous conditions, women are regularly robbed, arrested and raped by the police. Sex workers are being forcibly "rescued" against their will and locked in "rehabilitation centres." HIV and condom health organisations are being shut down. 

Sex work is work. Sex workers don't want to be rescued they want workers rights


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 20, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> I respect peoples choices. I'm banging a drum for those that make the choice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have a poor definition of 'choice'.


----------



## tim (Oct 20, 2009)

untethered said:


> Point to an era in human history when the government has been serious about stopping it.
> 
> But your point is a dismal one anyway. We should oppose things that are wrong rather than wring our hands and accept that it will always happen.
> 
> Frankly, every prostitute and every client sitting in a prison cell is a victory for decent society.




THe voice of tediously clean living totalitarianism


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 20, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> As long as no one is harmed, it's just another transaction



So if I go to the local haunts of street prostitutes in my town who are in the majority of cases crack or smack heads and I pay them to have sex-they in turn then go out buy some gear get off their heads....who knows if they have kids perhaps the kids are left neglected whilst they are off their heads and as a punter I'm funding a drug habit that's destroying their lives.Of course not to mention the recognised psychological effects on someone who has to suck multiple dicks a day just to survive....

...I can see how you can say nobody is being harmed there and it's just 'another transaction' 

Edit...last time I bought a pair of shoes can't remember it being anything like that...


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 20, 2009)

Mr Moose said:


> You have a poor definition of 'choice'.



Indeed. I would argue there is no such thing as 'free choice' we are each and everyone of us influenced by the world around us. I would even add the majority of prostitutes never grew up wanting to choose their profession but rather it was the _lack _of choices that forced them into the profession.

Arguing for workers co operatives and and sex workers unions doesn't really solve the problem of the long term damaging impact to individuals who find them self in this position or indeed the daily risk they face from punters. It may minimise them but it never eliminates them.

Perhaps we as a society should start looking at why women and men become involved in the game and what drives the punters rather than bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 20, 2009)

dylans said:


> As Jessiedog says, some of us have been ridiculed and insulted for taking this position but the truth is "trafficking" is a myth.




I just don't buy this line at all. Prostitution is an illegal activity and like any other illegal activity organised crime isn't far behind. Are you or the article suggesting that organised crime would in no way operate without a degree of coercion or the threat of force to make money within the sex industry?

Pretty much ANY criminal activity that involves organised crime operates in this manner-why on earth would prostitution somehow be any different from any other illegal activity?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 20, 2009)

Jessiedog loves to pretend that prostitution is all about free choice.  I find it rather creepy tbh.


----------



## agricola (Oct 20, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> I just don't buy this line at all. Prostitution is an illegal activity and like any other illegal activity organised crime isn't far behind. Are you or the article suggesting that organised crime would in no way operate without a degree of coercion or the threat of force to make money within the sex industry?
> 
> Pretty much ANY criminal activity that involves organised crime operates in this manner-why on earth would prostitution somehow be any different from any other illegal activity?



Actually, it isnt illegal and (to my mind at least) never has been.  There are aspects of it that are illegal - soliciting, brothel-keeping etc - but for a woman to sell herself and live off the proceeds isnt.  Given that criminalizing it would be probably as effective and socially responsible as criminalizing drug-taking has been, it should not be criminalized.


----------



## dylans (Oct 20, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> I just don't buy this line at all. Prostitution is an illegal activity and like any other illegal activity organised crime isn't far behind. Are you or the article suggesting that organised crime would in no way operate without a degree of coercion or the threat of force to make money within the sex industry?
> 
> Pretty much ANY criminal activity that involves organised crime operates in this manner-why on earth would prostitution somehow be any different from any other illegal activity?



Are you really that dense?

 You have this completely on its head  It is the  criminalisation of sex work which drives sex workers into the arms of organised crime. 

It is the very illegality of sex work which  leave many in the industry vulnerable to the very abuse that anti trafficking legislation claims to be fighting. 

It is a self fullfilling prophecy. The more  sex workers are criminalised and prostitution forced underground  then the more vulnerable those workers   become to criminal abuse like enslavement and force. 

We are not talking about a few crack heads on the corner. All over the world, especially in developing countries the US led anti trafficking laws are being used to attack poor women who choose YES CHOOSE to be in the sex industry.

Anti trafficking is an ideological construct that is being used to mask a vicious anti prostitution policy which is leaving sex workers at risk of serious human rights abuse. 

They are being labelled "victims" This is the language that the New Labour moralists used.  They need to be "saved"  I kid you not, In countries like Cambodia women are "rescued" from brothels. Rescued against their will and locked in "rehabilitation centres" which are nothing more than detention camps where they are robbed and raped by police. .In the name of anti trafficking" sex workers around the world are being denied basic human rights. 

Treat sex workers for what they are. Workers. Give sex workers the same labour rights as any other worker and criminal abuse evaporates. This is what those in the industry want.  Decriminalisation.


----------



## tbaldwin (Oct 20, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Jessiedog loves to pretend that prostitution is all about free choice.  I find it rather creepy tbh.



Agree. but he is a pervy free marketer....


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 20, 2009)

I currently work with male sex workers.  None of them see it as a "free choice".


----------



## XR75 (Oct 20, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> Are there people here saying that there aren't any women and girls who have been brought in to this country and then forced into servitude to be sex workers? All credit to the Guardian for this reporting, and it is good news, but the glee with which some people are using this to attack a Labour government which has made serious efforts to tackle what we now know might well be a less serious problem than was originally thought is a bit sickening.



I think some people are gleeful for reasons explained in a comment I took from one of the articles.



> One major problem with this, Rahila, is thats its the people working in the industry who have had a big hand in inflating these numbers, Julie Bindel being as fine an example as you could possibly imagine. So now that it appears the illusion has been rumbled, you are now pointing to the illusionists responsible as evidence that Nick's wrong. Because they say so. And you say so.
> 
> These people are making a living from this work. Their "findings" also reinforce their political ideology and they use them as leverage to force through other parts of their ideology, like criminalising men paying for sex. Thats what happened, its not rocket science, its not particularly sneaky - its quite plain whats gone on and many have been pointing this out. So these industry workers currently have a severe credibility problem, as do you frankly.
> 
> You only have yourselves to blame as well. As a lobby, diverse as it is, to have commissioned and stood behind the Poppy Project showed a major lack of integrity and its come back to bite you. I presume Belinda Brooks-Gordon isn't a fan of sexual slavery but she does have integrity - she pulled the report up for its glaring faults even though I'm sure she agrees "1 is too many". It cant be said enough times, reality matters, statistics matter and lying matters, whether you're sticking up for abandoned puppies or mass murderers.



Secondly could you remind me what labour have done to stop sex trafficking?


----------



## XR75 (Oct 20, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Jessiedog loves to pretend that prostitution is all about free choice.  I find it rather creepy tbh.



About as free as any other job......


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 20, 2009)

XR75 said:


> About as free as any other job......



Yes, that's right, the lads I work with could easily have got other jobs, they just "chose" to sex work.

Fuckwit.


----------



## XR75 (Oct 20, 2009)

Why don't you tell us why they "chose" it.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 20, 2009)

XR75 said:


> Why don't you tell us why they "chose" it.



Homelessness, drug problems and a history of being sexually abused.


----------



## dylans (Oct 20, 2009)

We all have limited choices. We trade off what is possible with what we find acceptable.What we can do and what we are prepared to do.  15 years ago I  used to work in  factories I fucking hated it. I could have chosen to work in a bar but the hours and pay werent as good. I CHOSE to work in a horrible stinking factory. It was real shithole too. I came home with needles of metal in my hands. I stuck it out for six months and couldnt do it anymore. I chose to do it cus the money was better than anything else at the time. 
A young poor woman in a developing country, lets say Vietnam, faces choices and options of a different kind. But she has choices. She can work for $40.00 per month 12 hours a day in a garment factory and be poor. This is what most women do choose. 

Or she can she can go to the bars twice a week and sleep with a customer or two. And make $100 a night. If she does this she knows there is a social cost. She knows better than you. If she becomes a prostitute it is a very conscious choice and you do those in the industry no favours by denying that.

She has a choice. It may be a shitty choice but hey, end poverty or shut up. The last thing that a sex workers wants is moralistic Westerners telling her that they object to how she earns a living, that she has no choice and that she is a victim. this only further disempowers her. She doesn't need saving, she need her rights


----------



## agricola (Oct 20, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Homelessness, drug problems and a history of being sexually abused.



The problem on this thread is that certain people have taken the article that formed the OP and have appeared to extend it to mean that noone is "forced" into prostitution.  As I said earlier, this is very naive.


----------



## dylans (Oct 20, 2009)

agricola said:


> The problem on this thread is that certain people have taken the article that formed the OP and have appeared to extend it to mean that noone is "forced" into prostitution.  As I said earlier, this is very naive.



No that is not the argument. What those of us who deny the existance of trafficking are saying is that the anti trafficking lobby has pursued a moralistic anti prostitution agenda under the cover of rescuing the victims of trafficking. No "victims" are being rescued at all. Instead sex workers are being criminalised and denied basic human rights

They have manipulated opinion and now they have been shown to be liars. The entire house of cards has come crashing down.

Trafficking is a myth. You have been lied to


----------



## agricola (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> No that is not the argument. What those of us who deny the existance of trafficking are saying is that the anti trafficking lobby has pursued a moralistic anti prostitution agenda under the cover of rescuing the victims of trafficking. No "victims" are being rescued at all. Instead sex workers are being criminalised and denied basic human rights
> 
> They have manipulated opinion and now they have been shown to be liars. The entire house of cards has come crashing down.
> 
> Trafficking is a myth. You have been lied to



Trafficking is absolutely, demonstrably and clearly not "a myth".  

While you make a reasonable point about sex workers being treated fairly and having their rights respected, you ignore the abundant evidence that except for a small minority (and none of those are in the most at risk group, ie: those on the streets) those "workers" are in fact compelled to do what they do for a number of reasons outlined earlier by various people on this thread.


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2009)

agricola said:


> Trafficking is absolutely, demonstrably and clearly not "a myth".



*The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution*

It's a myth. and the odd gangster in the papers doesn't change the fact that the claims of the "anti traffickers" that all prostitution is slavery is clearly false. 

Sex workers are not victims to be rescued. They are workers who need rights.


----------



## Urbanblues (Oct 21, 2009)

Did anyone see Nikki Adams (ECP) take Denis McShane's arguments apart on newsnight? Even Paxman was impressed with Nikki, a formidable spokeswoman on a range of subjects.


----------



## Urbanblues (Oct 21, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I currently work with male sex workers.  None of them see it as a "free choice".



Some male sex workers, GMB members, attended a Lambeth Trades Council earlier this year. One plank of their argument was that they chose to work in the industry; and, thus should have the same rights as all other workers.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2009)

An interesting thread beofre it was derailed by the usual suspects. 

Basically, the facts as presented in the guardian article are incredibly misleading. For example the fact that police charged and prosecuted two people who originally seemed to be victims is presented as a fuck up. It's actually a well known fact that former victims of traffickers will often become traffickers themselves, either through coercion or because they feel they have no other choice economically. There is a huge stigma around any form of violence against women in these societies and much of the time their families will disown them, also they will have missed out on their education and work opportunities, they may feel that is the only option left. 

Secondly, there is increasing evidence that the "profile" of a trafficking victim has changed over time. It's no longer naive middle class girls from a sheltered background who thought they were going to be secretaries or something. It's come to resemble the profile of trafficked women within the UK who have frequently got severe mental health problems, mental retardation or who grew up in highly disturbed backgrounds. A lot of them are being trafficked from care homes. Like in the UK. Some also come from countries where access to this education is limited, or for example the roma community 

I'm sure the figures for trafficking in the UK are exaggerated and tend to feed more into more general fears about immigration, but nonetheless to call it a myth is total bollocks and not surprising coming from posters who have a certain agenda in mind. It's just not like how the Guardian et al are portraying it (which is surprising given a few months ago they did an article about the extent of trafficking in the chinese community and said the police/gov't weren't doing ENOUGH...)


----------



## rioted (Oct 21, 2009)

Mr Moose said:


> Sure people don't lose their moral responsibility when they use prostitutes, but it must be a long, long road to get there that perhaps you'd have to travel to really understand. Whatever the right approach is locking them up isn't it.


Corrected


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 21, 2009)

Urbanblues said:


> Some male sex workers, GMB members, attended a Lambeth Trades Council earlier this year. One plank of their argument was that they chose to work in the industry; and, thus should have the same rights as all other workers.



I agree sex workers should have the same rights as other workers.  This doesn't mean one has to stop thinking critically about the context in which this work and the choices that lead one to it, take place.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2009)

Urbanblues said:


> Did anyone see Nikki Adams (ECP) take Denis McShane's arguments apart on newsnight? Even Paxman was impressed with Nikki, a formidable spokeswoman on a range of subjects.



I don't think I've ever seen a politician perform as badly as the appaling McShane did last night, a total joke who couldn't make a decent point to save his life.

The whole history of this governments attempts to 'do something' about prostitution have failed miserably.  Every crackdown, and moving on of sex workers from their preferred localities has led to more attacks and more deaths.  

Tho obviously not of people new labour actually care about.


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> Sex workers are not victims to be rescued.



True in most cases.



dylans said:


> They are workers who need rights.



No, they are perverts who need locking up.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2009)

sex workers are perverts??!!

congratualtions, moronic post of the day award, and it's not even half past ten!


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered is an elaborate troll IMO


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2009)

not that elaborate really.


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

belboid said:


> sex workers are perverts??!!



I hardly call sleeping with people for money normal sexual behaviour.

If it's not a perversion what is it? Either way it needs to be tackled with considerable vim.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2009)

you're not worth the effort of arguing with.

fuck off


----------



## Belushi (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered said:


> I hardly call sleeping with people for money normal sexual behaviour.
> 
> If it's not a perversion what is it? Either way it needs to be tackled with considerable vim.



Thats the daftest thing I've heard all year.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 21, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I agree sex workers should have the same rights as other workers.  This doesn't mean one has to stop thinking critically about the context in which this work and the choices that lead one to it, take place.



Spot on.


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> An interesting thread beofre it was derailed by the usual suspects.
> 
> Basically, the facts as presented in the guardian article are incredibly misleading. For example the fact that police charged and prosecuted two people who originally seemed to be victims is presented as a fuck up. It's actually a well known fact that former victims of traffickers will often become traffickers themselves, either through coercion or because they feel they have no other choice economically. There is a huge stigma around any form of violence against women in these societies and much of the time their families will disown them, also they will have missed out on their education and work opportunities, they may feel that is the only option left.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry if you think those of us who have long argued against the "anti trafficking" industry have a certain agenda. I am not entirely sure what agenda you think we have and I object to the idea that we have somehow hijacked this thread. On the contrary, I think it is you, who continue to peddle the lie of "trafficking" who have a hidden agenda, a moralistic anti prostitution agenda which to seeks to push an abolitionist policy in the name of "anti trafficking"

So let me spell out my agenda. I lived in Cambodia for over 10 years. I consider many of the sex workers in PP to be my valued friends. Some of these women I have known since the first day they walked into a bar and I have seen many of them reach the age where they can no longer work and they begin the long slow decline into poverty and loneliness. i have seen the abuse they suffer and I have watched many of them die, poor and alone from disease and a life of abuse.

My agenda is simple. I believe as they do that the lives of sex workers would be improved by guaranteeing their rights. Their human rights and their rights as workers and that instead of pushing an abolitionist agenda which only hurts sex workers, sex work should be decriminalised and the rights of sex workers protected in the same way as all workers.

I believe that the one group of people whose voices are never heard are the women themselves. I think we would all benefit from actually listening to them instead of forcing a western moralist agenda down their throats.


Take a moment to actually listen to what they say

http://blip.tv/file/970833/

Instead, in the name of "anti-trafficking" these workers are persecuted, arrested, raped and robbed by police, forcibly "rescued and imprisoned in "rehabilitation" centres against their will. 
The US government enforces sanctions against developing countries that don't meet their standards of "anti trafficking." In effect they force developing  nations to enact and enforce anti prostitution laws that criminalise the entire sex industry.

Since Cambodia enacted "anti trafficking" legislation, brothels, bars and other safe places of work have been closed and women forced to work in dangerous circumstances in the parks and streets. 

The human rights of prostitutes have been trampled and they have been driven into the arms of organised crime. The police have used this legislation to abuse thousands of women. Women have been robbed and raped by the police. They are now routinely forced to bribe police to avoid being "rescued" and detained. Health organisations  that distribute condoms have been raided and closed. All as a direct result of "anti-trafficking" legislation

This is fact and it is now. Anti trafficking" is nothing less than a smoke screen for a moralistic anti prostitution campaign. WAKE UP. TRAFFICKING IS A MYTH.

My agenda is very straight forward. I think people should listen to what sex workers actually say and what they want. They don't want to be rescued or saved. They want their rights 

Don't take my word for it listen to the voices of the women themselves. 


Sex work is work. Sex workers need workers rights.


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Thats the daftest thing I've heard all year.



The proposition that prostitution causes a lot of people a lot of trouble is fairly self-evident. It's easy enough to get from there to "something must be done".

But why not do it properly rather than all these half-hearted "initiatives"?


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> Sex work is work. Sex workers need workers rights.



Drug dealing is work. People do it for money in preference to other occupations.

Do drug dealers need rights?


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered said:


> Drug dealing is work. People do it for money in preference to other occupations.
> 
> Do drug dealers need rights?



 If you think the sex workers in these videos should be treated as criminals then you are beyond contempt and I really have nothing to say to you.

http://blip.tv/file/970833/

http://blip.tv/file/1176895


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> If you think the sex workers in these videos should be treated as criminals then you are beyond contempt and I really have nothing to say to you.



I expect the difference between the two of us is that you want to make it marginally easier for these people to continue to perform dangerous, degrading, socially-damaging work and I'd like to destroy the whole industry and have those people find alternative employment.

Frankly, you're not much better than a pimp yourself.


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered said:


> I expect the difference between the two of us is that you want to make it marginally easier for these people to continue to perform dangerous, degrading, socially-damaging work and I'd like to destroy the whole industry and have those people find alternative employment.
> 
> Frankly, you're not much better than a pimp yourself.



And you are no better the gang raping cops in Phnom Penh.


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> And you are no better the gang raping cops in Phnom Penh.



I hardly think you can hold me responsible for police in a foreign country being unable to uphold their own laws and act decently.

I'm sure Cambodians are quite capable of organising their own affairs among themselves. I'm much more interested in stopping the industry in this country.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 21, 2009)

Down with this sort of thing. Sigh....


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered said:


> I hardly think you can hold me responsible for police in a foreign country being unable to uphold their own laws and act decently.
> 
> I'm sure Cambodians are quite capable of organising their own affairs among themselves. I'm much more interested in stopping the industry in this country.



Idiot. Anti-trafficking legislation is enforced through sanctions by the US government. Developing countries that don't play ball are subject to sanctions. The abuse that Cambodian sex workers are suffering is a direct result of "anti trafficking" laws
You see? you are confronted with the direct consequences of the laws you support, the rapes, the illegal confinement, the robberies, the coercion and abuse and you throw your hands up and say "nothing to do with me" You are morally bankrupt. Give it up


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> you are confronted with the direct consequences of the laws you support



I have absolutely no interest in the policies and conditions that one foreign government imposes on another. Only in this country, where a general clampdown on prostitution is both necessary and realistic.


----------



## innit (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> Sex work is work. Sex workers need workers rights.



I don't agree with you, but this is fair enough to argue.

But to say that trafficking is a myth is just rubbish and I am offended.  I have met numerous people trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation.  They were traumatised.  Many had PTSD.  That's not a myth, that's their experience.  They weren't workers, they were slaves.


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered said:


> I have absolutely no interest in the policies and conditions that one foreign government imposes on another. Only in this country, where a general clampdown on prostitution is both necessary and realistic.



So you choose to ignore the consequences of "anti trafficking" legislation for the vast majority of sex workers around the world. ignorance is indeed bliss


----------



## Carousel (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered said:
			
		

> Only in this country, where a general clampdown on prostitution is both necessary and realistic.


Tell me again why it's "neccesary"? It gives me a hard on. Are you, like, religious or something?


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> So you choose to ignore the consequences of "anti trafficking" legislation for the vast majority of sex workers around the world. ignorance is indeed bliss



I expect that significantly suppressing prostitution in the UK is sufficient challenge for now. Other countries' experiences may be informative but I doubt there is much useful comparison between the UK and Cambodia.

You have your priorities (which seem to comprise making prostitution just barely tolerable for some of the world's most vulnerable people) and I have mine.


----------



## fogbat (Oct 21, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Tell me again why it's "neccesary"? It gives me a hard on. Are you, like, religious or something?



A freak accident transported him here from Victorian times. We all pray that another one will return him there.


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Tell me again why it's "neccesary"? It gives me a hard on. Are you, like, religious or something?



No, I'm just one of those odd people that thinks people shouldn't be encouraged, supported, enabled or even permitted to earn a living by having sex with numerous strangers.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2009)

innit said:


> I don't agree with you, but this is fair enough to argue.
> 
> But to say that trafficking is a myth is just rubbish and I am offended.  I have met numerous people trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation.  They were traumatised.  Many had PTSD.  That's not a myth, that's their experience.  They weren't workers, they were slaves.



don't have time to do a long reply as am at work but I agree with this.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 21, 2009)

> You have your priorities (which seem to comprise making prostitution just barely tolerable for some of the world's most vulnerable people) and I have mine.


Ha ha. You're into "vulnerable people". As if we're obliged to curtail our appetites for their sake. Grief. Next you'll be banning booze coz it gets people pissed. Tell us is there any vice you'd encourage? Why are the needs of the vulnerable any more important than mine? Answer me that.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 21, 2009)

> No, I'm just one of those odd people that thinks people shouldn't be encouraged, supported, enabled or even permitted to earn a living by having sex with numerous strangers.


Ha ha. Yes it must be stopped at all costs. How dare they, don't they understand we owe our precious lives to the great creator? You'll be banning boxing next.


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Next you'll be banning booze coz it gets people p-.



That's a serious problem but a different one.



Carousel said:


> Tell us is there any vice you'd encourage?



The clue is in the name.



Carousel said:


> Why are the needs of the vulnerable any more important than mine? Answer me that.



What are your needs?


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Ha ha. Yes it must be stopped at all costs. How dare they, don't they understand we owe our precious lives to the great creator? You'll be banning boxing next.



You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I am religious. I am not.

Banning boxing? I'm not a fan but it appears not to carry the same moral hazards as prostitution.


----------



## innit (Oct 21, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Why are the needs of the vulnerable any more important than mine? Answer me that.



Are you serious?  What a bizarre question.

Because they have less power.  Because they have less choice.  Because using a position of greater power to satisfy your needs at the expense of another, more vulnerable, is abuse.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 21, 2009)

innit said:


> Are you serious?  What a bizarre question.
> 
> Because they have less power.  Because they have less choice.  Because using a position of greater power to satisfy your needs at the expense of another, more vulnerable, is abuse.



Carousel is another elaborate troll, with a Nietzsche book in tow.


----------



## innit (Oct 21, 2009)

then I shan't bother - ta!


----------



## Belushi (Oct 21, 2009)

fogbat said:


> A freak accident transported him here from Victorian times. We all pray that another one will return him there.



Good old Victorian times, with its complete absence of prostitution.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered & Carousel = two sides of the same idiotic coin.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 21, 2009)

Surely the point it that if the government wants to make a moral case against prostitution it should do so, and not talk up forced prostitution and sex-trafficking to an unrealistic degree as a means of doing that on the sly, because in doing so they are harming the interests of both trafficked women and those who choose to work in the sex industry.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered said:


> You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I am religious. I am not.
> 
> Banning boxing? I'm not a fan but it appears not to carry the same moral hazards as prostitution.


You're my new favourite poster. You say you're not religious, yet you regurgitate Abrahamic morality as if you were. So, what’s your secularism really worth? Not much.

Besides, the idea that boxing carries a different moral hazard than prostitution is quite arbitrary. The value system could be locked in your genes you know. VMAT2 or something maybe.


innit said:


> Are you serious?  What a bizarre question.
> 
> Because they have less power.  Because they have less choice.  Because using a position of greater power to satisfy your needs at the expense of another, more vulnerable, is abuse.


Yeah yeah. Victim mentality. People like you shut down the Coliseum.  You satisfy your needs at the expense of another when you ride a bus. It comes down to a quite arbitrary, religious, question of degree. Banning this-or-that is "necessary" only in so far it salves your particular emotional needs. It satisfies yours at the expense of mine. You’re an abuser, by your own criteria.


----------



## fogbat (Oct 21, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Good old Victorian times, with its complete absence of prostitution.



It was a more innocent time...


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

Carousel said:


> You're my new favourite poster.



You flatter me. But do you flatter to deceive?



Carousel said:


> You say you're not religious, yet you regurgitate Abrahamic morality as if you were. So, what’s your secularism really worth? Not much.



I hestitate to attempt to paper over some of the cracks in your education but secularism and atheism are two distinct things.



Carousel said:


> Besides, the idea that boxing carries a different moral hazard than prostitution is quite arbitrary. The value system could be locked in your genes you know. VMAT2 or something maybe.



While I wouldn't encourage either, I'd prefer it if you offered yourself to be punched in the head all day rather than advertised your body for remunerated sex.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 21, 2009)

> Because they have less power. Because they have less choice. Because using a position of greater power to satisfy your needs at the expense of another, more vulnerable, is abuse.


The underdog is always right. Blessed are the meek.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered said:


> While I wouldn't encourage either, I'd prefer it if you offered yourself to be punched in the head all day rather than advertised your body for remunerated sex.


I don't doubt it. You carry a sex-taboo. Besides, you wouldn't say that if you saw me. I am fucking hot.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 21, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Surely the point it that if the government wants to make a moral case against prostitution it should do so, and not talk up forced prostitution and sex-trafficking to an unrealistic degree as a means of doing that on the sly, because in doing so they are harming the interests of both trafficked women and those who choose to work in the sex industry.



This.


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Surely the point it that if the government wants to make a moral case against prostitution it should do so



Indeed. Prostitution is always and everywhere wrong, not just incidentally harmful to some people in some circumstances.

It's a social cancer. We need to operate.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 21, 2009)

Fruitloop  said:
			
		

> if the government wants to make a moral case against prostitution it should do so, and not talk up forced prostitution and sex-trafficking to an unrealistic degree as a means of doing that on the sly, because in doing so they are harming the interests of both trafficked women and those who choose to work in the sex industry.


Well quite. The real motivation is for the likes of Harman and Smith to protect their own traditional family structures from their spouses desire for fresh talent. They want to keep their poor wank-over-pay-per-view hubbies visiting their own bushy fetid growlers forever, or no one’s at all.


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

Carousel said:


> I don't doubt it. You carry a sex-taboo. Besides, you wouldn't say that if you saw me. I am f- hot.



No matter how attractive you may think you are or may actually be, I would still prefer you to offer yourself for a pugilistic pummelling than parade as a common trollop.

Not that I think you should be obliged to do either, you understand, nor anyone else for that matter.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 21, 2009)

Are there any jobs you think we should be obliged to do? What about cleaning or bus driving? Explain to us what's so special about sex. Is it the penetration into the body that gets you going?


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Are there any jobs you think we should be obliged to do?



Those that can work should do so.



Carousel said:


> What about cleaning or bus driving? Explain to us what's so special about sex. Is it the penetration into the body that gets you going?



Stop being filthy.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 21, 2009)

> Those that can work should do so.


What even if they can afford not to? Seems a bit Quakerist. Come on, you think people shouldn't be obliged to box or fuck for living, what criteria do you apply to make the list of evil jobs? Your arbitrary sense of "filthyness"?


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

Carousel said:


> What even if they can afford not to?



The devil finds work for idle hands, metaphorically. The idle rich are as despicable as the idle poor.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 21, 2009)

Fascinating. Genuine question, do you hear voices screaming that you're evil when you have sex? Mental distress which prevents you from having a fulfilling sexual existence?


----------



## untethered (Oct 21, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Fascinating. Genuine question, do you hear voices screaming that you're evil when you have sex? Mental distress which prevents you from having a fulfilling sexual existence?



What unusual and impertinent questions. Still, I won't be discussing my private life with you.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 21, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Well quite. The real motivation is for the likes of Harman and Smith to protect their own traditional family structures from their spouses desire for fresh talent. They want to keep their poor wank-over-pay-per-view hubbies visiting their own bushy fetid growlers forever, or no one’s at all.



Perfectly understandable concern on their part, I would have thought. The only act of penetration I'd consider engaging in with them would be to hammer a stake into their cold black hearts, and even then I'd rather use somebody else's.


----------



## maximilian ping (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered - go and finish your essay on the Romans 

you are a total arse. and not for the first time.  v boring as well.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 21, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Perfectly understandable concern on their part, I would have thought. The only act of penetration I'd consider engaging in with them would be to hammer a stake into their cold black hearts, and even then I'd rather use somebody else's.


Exactly. They want prostitution shutdown out of jealousy as much as anything. Curtain twitchers one and all. Thin end of the wedge mate. It'll be Page 3 next.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/20/sex-trafficking-inquiry-nick-davies

an interesting reply from rahila gupta.


----------



## Urbanblues (Oct 21, 2009)

belboid said:


> I don't think I've ever seen a politician perform as badly as the appaling McShane did last night, a total joke who couldn't make a decent point to save his life.



In fairness, he was up against quite a formidable woman. I’ve known Nikki Adams for a long time. She’s a very capable and focused person; not somebody I’d pick a fight with unless I was absolutely certain all my arguments were watertight. 

However, like so many of our legislators, McShane has become both lazy and arrogant; lazy in that he didn’t appear to have carried out any research – thus he continually tried to introduce straw men into the debate; and, arrogant in that he thought as an MP could simply dismiss the views of a rep from the English Collective of Prostitutes.

Unluckily, for him, he came unstuck on all counts; and, I say good for you Nikki, keep sticking the bastards.



> The whole history of this governments attempts to 'do something' about prostitution have failed miserably.  Every crackdown, and moving on of sex workers from their preferred localities has led to more attacks and more deaths.
> 
> Tho obviously not of people new labour actually care about.



You’re right Belboid. The proper environment for prostitutes is the safety of a premises. Whenever they’re driven from areas such as Soho onto the streets they become far easier targets for violence.

We need to follow a more enlightened strategy for legalising prostitution; if countries such as lands, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Greece, Hungary and Latvia allow legal and regulated prostitution, why should we not follow suit?

Prostitution, as with most ‘anti-social’ activities that are driven underground, attracts criminality. By legalising and regulating the ‘industry’ we drive away most of the criminal element.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/20/sex-trafficking-inquiry-nick-davies
> 
> an interesting reply from rahila gupta.



some interesting points indeed - tho it is also noteworthy that even that article rejects the claim from last year that there were 25,000 'sex-trafficked' women in the uk - 'one in every city, town and village.'

While I strongly suspect that there is a lot of truth in the claim that explicit sex trafficking is very hard to prove, and so traffickers get off with lesser charges, that is still a very long way from saying it is a massibve problem. The article also suffers from the kind of misuse of stats that it is complaining about, eg - "Esso, believe that only 2% of women freely choose prostitution."

Well, quite. Those 2%, the 'belle du jours' and 'high class hookers', are a miniscule minority, anyone working in the field would tel lyou that.  But that is a far cry from saying that the other 98% have been forced by _someone_ into prostitution.  They are forced into it by drug addiction and poverty, not by a nasty man looking to exploiut them.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered said:


> I have absolutely no interest in the policies and conditions that one foreign government imposes on another. Only in this country......



You and tbaldwin certainly make for amusing bedfellows.




Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered said:


> common trollop.




Personally I think this term should be treated with the same reverence that the term nigger is when utterred, or written, by those who are neither.


But that's just me.



Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered said:


> I'd like to destroy the whole industry and have those people find alternative employment.




Well, why don't you just go out and find and then provide this "alternative employment" for prostitutes _first_ then? Employment that is as flexible, self determined and _lucrative_ as prostitution. When you do, I'm sure that prostitutes will be flocking to your door and you'll end up a wealthy man (pimp?).

Until you can provide this alternative; fuck off!


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

agricola said:


> It is somewhat naive to suggest that even a sizeable minority of sex-workers do so purely out of choice - there is usually some form of compulsion involved, be it financial.........



Of course there is _financial_ compulsion; generally, it is flexible, self determined and lucrative work.

To suggest that anything other than the vast, _vast_ majority of sex workers are doing it for any other reason than financial is entirely naive.

I'm sure that the vast majority of public-toilet cleaners and manual labourers would also prefer to be shelf-stackers in _Park "n" Shop_ .... if only it paid five times their current wage for sporadic bursts of activity timed at their own choosing.


The evidence on "trafficking" is in and the emperor has no clothes.

Oh! Sorry. There _is_ a single thread of cotton draped over his nakedness.

Better set up a "trafficking" industry to hunt the thread down then.





Woof


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 21, 2009)

Do you ever pay for sex Jessiedog btw?

If not, would you?


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

Mr Moose said:


> You have a poor definition of 'choice'.



That's not really helpful, Mr M.

I haven't _exactly_ chosen to be unemployed for 20 months without any social welfare help.

The longer it goes on, the less able I feel to fix it.

But I'd certainly rather fuck for a living than clean up other peoples' shit, twelve hours a day six days a week for four hundred and fifty quid a month.

Of course, not everyone has the same choices and not everyone can get a million bucks a year in bonuses, but surely we should be allowed to choose from the range of choices that _are_ available to us?


The world ain't perfect and we should keep trying to improve it (with _much_ more effort IMO,) but why reduce the choices of those that tend to have the least of options, surely they deserve our support more than most do?


Woof


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 21, 2009)

Ok didnt get that. Apologies.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> So if I go to the local haunts of street prostitutes in my town who are in the majority of cases crack or smack heads and I pay them to have sex-they in turn then go out buy some gear get off their heads....who knows if they have kids perhaps the kids are left neglected whilst they are off their heads and as a punter I'm funding a drug habit that's destroying their lives.Of course not to mention the recognised psychological effects on someone who has to suck multiple dicks a day just to survive....



You, of all people, should understand the issues around the prohibition of drugs and the immense costs incurred therefrom.

Some would argue that those dealing herion/cocaine should be locked up.

But I agree that prohibition has the "unintended consequence" of pushing the most vunerable into even more precarious circumstances.




> ...I can see how you can say nobody is being harmed there and it's just 'another transaction'
> 
> Edit...last time I bought a pair of shoes can't remember it being anything like that...



Prostitution is, generally, just as mundane as buying a pair of shoes.

Drug addiction is a devestating affliction that needs massive support and not criminalisation.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Indeed. I would argue there is no such thing as 'free choice' we are each and everyone of us influenced by the world around us. I would even add the majority of prostitutes never grew up wanting to choose their profession but rather it was the _lack _of choices that forced them into the profession.




Indeed. I would argue that the same applies to shelf-stackers and burger flippers - not enough investment banking jobs!!!





> Arguing for workers co operatives and and sex workers unions doesn't really solve the problem of the long term damaging impact to individuals who find them self in this position or indeed the daily risk they face from punters. It may minimise them but it never eliminates them.



There are many "dangerous" jobs, few of them well compensated - and yet some people actually engage in risky activity as "recreation". Bizzare.





> Perhaps we as a society should start looking at why women and men become involved in the game and what drives the punters rather than bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.



Ummmm....

It's the economy, stupid!



Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Jessiedog loves to pretend that prostitution is all about free choice.  I find it rather creepy tbh.



Once again, you misrepresent me.

You're a bit dim, Blagsta and it's beginning to show.

Wierdo.





Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> Agree. but he is a pervy free marketer....



Eh?

International Libertarian Socialist, if you don't mind.


Peado!




Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I currently work with male sex workers.




Nuff said.






> None of them see it as a "free choice".




I've met many thousands of workers in all kinds of shitty jobs who feel exactly the same way.

Life sucks.



Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

> One major problem with this, Rahila, is thats its the people working in the industry who have had a big hand in inflating these numbers, Julie Bindel being as fine an example as you could possibly imagine. So now that it appears the illusion has been rumbled, you are now pointing to the illusionists responsible as evidence that Nick's wrong. Because they say so. And you say so.
> 
> These people are making a living from this work. Their "findings" also reinforce their political ideology and they use them as leverage to force through other parts of their ideology, like criminalising men paying for sex. Thats what happened, its not rocket science, its not particularly sneaky - its quite plain whats gone on and many have been pointing this out. So these industry workers currently have a severe credibility problem, as do you frankly.
> 
> You only have yourselves to blame as well. As a lobby, diverse as it is, to have commissioned and stood behind the Poppy Project showed a major lack of integrity and its come back to bite you. I presume Belinda Brooks-Gordon isn't a fan of sexual slavery but she does have integrity - she pulled the report up for its glaring faults even though I'm sure she agrees "1 is too many". It cant be said enough times, reality matters, statistics matter and lying matters, whether you're sticking up for abandoned puppies or mass murderers.




Yes, and the emperor has no clothes (apart from the single thread, draped.... etc.)





Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> Are you really that dense?
> 
> You have this completely on its head  It is the  criminalisation of sex work which drives sex workers into the arms of organised crime.



Not as fucking dense as you obviously. Read my post again-only this time try opening your eyes.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, that's right, the lads I work with could easily have got other jobs, they just "chose" to sex work.



Road digger? Toilet cleaner?

Ahhhh, but those jobs would not have offered the same flexibility, money and free time.

I'd agree with them that prostitution was the best option.

What's wrong with that?

Of course, if these people have substance-use problems then it's entirely another issue and until they are properly helped (unlikely until the repeal of prohibition,) then, of course, prostitution is likely to be their best option.


As I've pointed out before, Blagsta, the nature of your work leads you to meet that tiny minority of people who are coping with the most difficult of personal circumstances. But to try and extrapolate that tiny minority into reflecting the general population is, well, rather tunnel visioned.



Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> We all have limited choices. We trade off what is possible with what we find acceptable.What we can do and what we are prepared to do.  15 years ago I  used to work in  factories I fucking hated it. I could have chosen to work in a bar but the hours and pay werent as good. I CHOSE to work in a horrible stinking factory. It was real shithole too. I came home with needles of metal in my hands. I stuck it out for six months and couldnt do it anymore. I chose to do it cus the money was better than anything else at the time.
> A young poor woman in a developing country, lets say Vietnam, faces choices and options of a different kind. But she has choices. She can work for $40.00 per month 12 hours a day in a garment factory and be poor. This is what most women do choose.
> 
> Or she can she can go to the bars twice a week and sleep with a customer or two. And make $100 a night. If she does this she knows there is a social cost. She knows better than you. If she becomes a prostitute it is a very conscious choice and you do those in the industry no favours by denying that.
> ...



Word.



Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> The last thing that a sex workers wants is moralistic Westerners telling her that they object to how she earns a living, that she has no choice and that she is a victim. this only further disempowers her. She doesn't need saving, she need her rights



The last thing she needs is a moronic westerner not arguing for greater wages in those very factories or better alternatives other than fucking westerners just to survive and feed their family.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I agree sex workers should have the same rights as other workers.  This doesn't mean one has to stop thinking critically about the context in which this work and the choices that lead one to it, take place.




Agreed.


Poverty is the issue.





Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 21, 2009)

belboid said:


> not that elaborate really.



You said it.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

untethered said:


> I hardly call sleeping with people for money normal sexual behaviour.



Never seen bonobos/chimps trading sexual favours for food?

Or are we not primates?




Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Surely the point it that if the government wants to make a moral case against prostitution it should do so, and not talk up forced prostitution and sex-trafficking to an unrealistic degree as a means of doing that on the sly, because in doing so they are harming the interests of both trafficked women and those who choose to work in the sex industry.



Yes.


Woof


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2009)

Shall I tell you what "trafficking" is?

A Vietnamese girl works as a prostitute in Phnom Penh. Every 6 months or so she returns to her village in Vietnam. She has nice clothes, jewellery and her family have food on the table and a new roof.

A girl in that village sees her. She's poor and alone for whatever reason. She approaches the well dressed girl and asks her how she makes money. The Hooker offers to take the girl to Cambodia. She knows the way. She knows the guards and who to bribe or who to sleep with to cross the border. Once in Phnom Penh she has a mat on her floor for the new girl to sleep on.. She lends her some clothes. She knows the bars and how to chat to the customers. She takes her to the bars and gets her work. 

In return the new girl gives the hooker a cut of any money she makes for a set period. Then the new girl is on her own to feet.

This is "trafficking" not the stereotype of chained and raped slaves hidden lorry containers that the "anti- traffickers" want us to believe.

Wake up. You are being lied to Trafficking is a myth


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

Mr Moose said:


> Do you ever pay for sex Jessiedog btw?
> 
> If not, would you?




I have both bought and sold sex.


But please don't tell anyone - they're likely to look down on me.


In my experience, marriage and prostitution are, often, not that distinct.


Woof


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> The last thing she needs is a moronic westerner not arguing for greater wages in those very factories or better alternatives other than fucking westerners just to survive and feed their family.



And you think you can speak for sex workers do you?

Yes workers need higher wages. I agree that the only way to create real choice is to bring people out of poverty but I fail to see how criminalising sex work does anything to expand the choices of women in the sex industry.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> The last thing she needs is a moronic westerner not arguing for greater wages in those very factories or better alternatives other than fucking westerners just to survive and feed their family.




I don't think anyone is _not_ arguing for greater wages and a better society.

The argument being made is that of leaving sex workers alone to make a living (or, better still, actually supporting them,) until those better alternatives (that keep seeming to disappear over the horizen,) actually arrive.




Woof


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> Wake up. You are being lied to Trafficking is a myth




I couldn't begin to tell you how sex work works in thailand or hong kong (not beyond the repugnant details one knows from here about the widespread nature of 'sex tourism'), but i don't think it really has _that_ much relation to how sex work works here, its a very different history and culture.

Trafficking is not as prevalent as many have wanted us to believe over the last five years, but it is a massive jump from that to saying it is a 'myth'.  On the newsnight thing last night, the academic who'd made a detailed study of what drove women into prostitution found that 10 out of 200 had felt some degree of coercion, with half of them saying (iirr) that they had effectively been tricked and kept n a form of 'bondage' (ie trapped in a debt, rather than specifically locked up).  That's 2.5%, not as many as claimed before, but still a significant number of abused women.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

belboid said:


> I couldn't begin to tell you how sex work works in thailand or hong kong (not beyond the repugnant details one knows from here about the widespread nature of 'sex tourism'), but i don't think it really has _that_ much relation to how sex work works here, its a very different history and culture.




Well, now you can set your mind at rest as far as the UK is concerned, since, *The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution*.





> Trafficking is not as prevalent as many have wanted us to believe over the last five years, but it is a massive jump from that to saying it is a 'myth'.  On the newsnight thing last night, the academic who'd made a detailed study of what drove women into prostitution found that *10 out of 200 had felt some degree of coercion,* with half of them saying (iirr) that they had effectively been tricked and kept n a form of 'bondage' (ie trapped in a debt, rather than specifically locked up).  That's 2.5%, not as many as claimed before, but still a significant number of abused women.




Five percent felt "some degree of coercion" and 2.5% felt "tricked".

What the fuck does that mean?

Nonsense data.

Post the study.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

belboid said:


> (.....the repugnant details one knows from here about the widespread nature of 'sex tourism'.....



Are you talking about the hords of Brits that flock to Spain for two weeks every year for their dose of "give me a pill and buy me a few cocktails and we can get it on"?

Yer.....


...I agree....



Disgusting!



Woof


----------



## agricola (Oct 21, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Well, now you can set your mind at rest as far as the UK is concerned, since, *The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution*.



And yet there have been several convictions of individuals charged with forcing people into prostitution.




			
				Jessiedog said:
			
		

> Five percent felt "some degree of coercion" and 2.5% felt "tricked".
> 
> What the fuck does that mean?
> 
> ...



It is an odd thread where belboid points to something easily checkable via iPlayer and its described as "nonsense data", wheras the Disney version you and dylans present is accepted as fact (even though dylans isnt actually talking about the UK).


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 21, 2009)

agricola said:


> And yet there have been several convictions of individuals charged with forcing people into prostitution.




Good.

It's a very rare crime, but that does not mean it should not be punished, as should forcing people into doing anything. Unfortunately, the far more widespread crime of "forcing" people into work is largely ignored by the authorities.

E2A - And my understanding is that ALL those convicted of "trafficking" were convicted of "trafficking" people who _agreed to be trafficked_.

Hardly a massive raft of kidnappers if there was no kidnap.




> It is an odd thread where belboid points to something easily checkable via iPlayer and its described as "nonsense data", wheras the Disney version you and dylans present is accepted as fact (even though dylans isnt actually talking about the UK).




I'm not interested in some bloody TV programme, I was asking where the data came from.

You know, actual evidence?





Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 21, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> But I agree that prohibition has the "unintended consequence" of pushing the most vunerable into even more precarious circumstances.



...and legalisation would somehow protect the vulnerable per se?




> Prostitution is, generally, just as mundane as buying a pair of shoes.



Well last time I bought shoes I wasn't asked to have unprotected sex. Nor was I anticipating that the shop owner and three of his shop assistants may choose to gang rape me either-or even kill me.

I notice you are conveniently choosing to ignore even the most obvious pyschological impact of having to sell something so personal and private to *anybody* that has the cash.

Don't be such a moron jessiedog.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 21, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> There are many "dangerous" jobs, few of them well compensated - and yet some people actually engage in risky activity as "recreation". Bizzare.



Yes of course thats it...the majority of prostitutes do it for rcreational purposes. How on earth did I miss that eh..


----------



## agricola (Oct 21, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Good.
> 
> It's a very rare crime, but that does not mean it should not be punished, as should forcing people into doing anything. Unfortunately, the far more widespread crime of "forcing" people into work is largely ignored by the authorities.
> 
> ...



Did you even read the links posted?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/04/sex-slavery-gang
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6320769.stm




			
				Jessiedog said:
			
		

> I'm not interested in some bloody TV programme, I was asking where the data came from.
> 
> You know, actual evidence?



Hang on - so where is your evidence?  Your argument appears to be based on an extrapolation of the OP, allied to some weird Disney-style Happy Hookers thinking, mixed with some frankly odd comparisons with factory work and topped off with a whole load of factually incorrect sprinkles.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Are you talking about the hords of Brits that flock to Spain for two weeks every year for their dose of "give me a pill and buy me a few cocktails and we can get it on"?
> 
> Yer.....
> 
> ...



no, what is disgusting is your deliberate distortion of reality, and the written word.  you may think financial bondage is nothing, you may think that gary glitter wannabe businessmen paying for 12 year olds on a package tour is okay, but i'm less convinced.

mrs belboid thinks that the researcher said that 10 women were coerced and 2.5% postively 'trafficked'. sadly the only bit on the newsnight site is the studio discusion - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8318629.stm, but there is more detailed studies quoted in a guardian article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 21, 2009)

agricola said:


> Hang on - so where is your evidence?  Your argument appears to be based on an extrapolation of the OP, allied to some weird Disney-style Happy Hookers thinking, mixed with some frankly odd comparisons with factory work and topped off with a whole load of factually incorrect sprinkles.




Indeed.


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...and legalisation would somehow protect the vulnerable per se?
> 
> 
> 
> .




Yes legislated workers rights would protect sex workers in the same way that legislated workers rights have protected workers in other professions. 

but your prohibitionis stance is precisely what is driving sex workers into the arms of predatory criminals. Do I have to repeat myself. Sex workers around the world are suffering human rights abuses because  of and as a direct result of anti-trafficking legislation. Legislation that is aggressively pushed by Western government particularly the US. In the name of rescuing women from slavery and bondage, sex workers are being criminalised, driven underground and driven into  the very situations where such abuse can occur


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> Yes legislated workers rights would protect sex workers in the same way that legislated workers rights have protected workers in other professions.



Does it protect them per se? Yes or no is suffice. 



> but your prohibitionis stance is precisely what is driving sex workers into the arms of predatory criminals. Do I have to repeat myself.



Hang on a sec....where have I discussed prohibition in this thread? Don't even bother looking cause you wont find it-you just carry on jumping in with both feet. Moron.


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Hang on a sec....where have I discussed prohibition in this thread? Don't even bother looking cause you wont find it-you just carry on jumping in with both feet. Moron.



you guys never do. You hide behind sensationalist nonsense about "rescuing victims from bondage" While in reality the same legislation is criminalising sex workers and sex work all over the world.


----------



## tbaldwin (Oct 21, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Well, now you can set your mind at rest as far as the UK is concerned, since, *The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution*.



And what exactly does that prove?
Do you really think it shows that nobody is forced into prostitution in the UK or just the investigation wasnt succesful in finding people who traffic sex workers?

The lack of proof from one single investigation is not proof that sex trafficking is not a major problem. It certainly is for people at the nasty end of it.....People are prosecuted and imprisoned regularly in the UK for sex trafficking and id guess that they were more proof than any academic research.....


----------



## agricola (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> you guys never do. You hide behind sensationalist nonsense about "rescuing victims from bondage" While in reality the same legislation is criminalising sex workers and sex work all over the world.



If you for a few moments took the time to actually read what people have written on this thread (and previously on this issue) you would realise exactly how wrong you are.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> you guys never do. You hide behind sensationalist nonsense about "rescuing victims from bondage" While in reality the same legislation is criminalising sex workers and sex work all over the world.



So thats a no then. Glad we've established that you were jumping in with both feet and not even reading my posts...and you call me dense.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 21, 2009)

agricola said:


> If you for a few moments took the time to actually read what people have written on this thread (and previously on this issue) you would realise exactly how wrong you are.



What read posts.....what a silly idea.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 21, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> And what exactly does that prove?
> Do you really think it shows that nobody is forced into prostitution in the UK or just the investigation wasnt succesful in finding people who traffic sex workers?
> 
> The lack of proof from one single investigation is not proof that sex trafficking is not a major problem. It certainly is for people at the nasty end of it.....People are prosecuted and imprisoned regularly in the UK for sex trafficking and id guess that they were more proof than any academic research.....


could you provide a link to three recent convictions? if they happen so regularly that shouldn't be a problem


----------



## tbaldwin (Oct 21, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> could you provide a link to three recent convictions? if they happen so regularly that shouldn't be a problem



Tell you what you like research so much, i will leave it to you.....What with you being so clever and all........As well as being a humble man of the people etc etc......Anarchist clown......


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 21, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> could you provide a link to three recent convictions? if they happen so regularly that shouldn't be a problem





> In July 2007, the first successful compensation awards were made to two young Romanian women. Both were trafficked to the UK and forced into prostitution. They suffered rape as well as physical and emotional abuse. After several years the women managed to escape their traffickers and found refuge at the Poppy Project. Both women were witnesses at the trial of their trafficker, who was subsequently convicted of rape and controlling prostitution and sentenced to 21 years imprisonment.
> 
> One of the women, trafficked at the age of 16, received £62,000 compensation, which included £22,000 for sexual abuse and £40,000 for lost earnings and opportunities. The other woman, who was 13 when she was trafficked, received £36,500 which included £16,500 for sexual abuse and £20,000 for lost opportunities.



http://www.antislavery.org/english/..._trafficking_for_forced_labour_in_the_uk.aspx



> To date there have been 92 convictions for trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation under the Sexual Offences Act and four convictions for trafficking for labour exploitation.



http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/government-ratifies-convention


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 21, 2009)

Then of course there's trafficking outside of the UK....



> "Women and girls as young as 11 are being sold into sexual slavery in Kosovo and international peacekeepers are not only failing to stop it they are actively fuelling this despicable trade by themselves paying for sex from trafficked women."



http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=15346

Of course the UK _must_ be immune from this practice eh...


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 21, 2009)

I'm frankly amazed thay anyone could compare the traffic of women for the purposes of prostitution and trafficing of women (or men, indeed) for the purposes of work. The former - and let's make no bones about it - invoves rape. Not just one rape (that would be bad enough), but repeated rapes, several a day, day after day after day.

I'm not even sure what the data about the succcesful prosecutions, or lack of them, for sex trafficing in the UK proves. There are relatively few major drugs barons convicted in the UK - primarily because they are clever enough to put a good deal of distance between them and the business they are involved in. Yet no-one would seriously deny that a massive amount of drug dealing goes on.

Happie Chappie


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> http://www.antislavery.org/english/..._trafficking_for_forced_labour_in_the_uk.aspx
> 
> ]



Oh yeah good link 
*
"Government research shows that there are an estimated 4,000 victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation in the UK at any one time*."

Hmmmm? but dont let silly things like facts get in the way. Yes call every sex worker who crosses a border a sex slave. Call every person that facilitates the cross border movement of sex worker a trafficker and you can have your statistics. But that don't make it so

*"The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution "*

Trafficking is a lie, a hoax, a myth. It is trojan horse hiding an anti prostitution, prohibitionist agenda.


----------



## agricola (Oct 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> Oh yeah good link
> *
> "Government research shows that there are an estimated 4,000 victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation in the UK at any one time*."
> 
> ...



Not commenting on the links describing *actual* convictions for *actual* cases of trafficking, then?   I suppose that would ruin your by-now standard signature though.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

dylans said:


> Trafficking is a lie, a hoax, a myth. It is trojan horse hiding an anti prostitution, prohibitionist agenda.



this surprise me, tho onlty because previously you've nebver given the impresson of being an idiot.

Read the research, not just the fucking headlines, and you will see clearly that trafficking _is_ real, but grossly exagerated. It has been used to push a reactionary agenda, but thzat is no reason to exagerate in the opposite direction and completely deny the existence of something that is all too real.  

If you want to argue otherwise, go ahead, but try quoting some actual research or evidence, not just some dubious fiction.


----------



## dylans (Oct 22, 2009)

agricola said:


> Not commenting on the links describing *actual* convictions for *actual* cases of trafficking, then?   I suppose that would ruin your by-now standard signature though.



You expect me to comment on every outrageous claim by every dubious link that you post? Then you explain the discrepancy between the claim on your link that

]"*Government research shows that there are an estimated 4,000 victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation in the UK at any one time."*

and this 

"*The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution "*

Lies damn lies and statistics. Refer to  every sex worker arrested on illegal immigration charges a "victim. Refer to everyone arrested for aiding or facilitating the illegal migration of sex workers a "trafficker" and surprise surprise you have Jackie Smith's "trafficking epidemic."

While we are the subject of commenting on peoples posts I notice you have completely ignored the voices of sex workers. Who condemn trafficking legislation 

Care to comment?
http://www.channels.com/episodes/sho...aw-in-Cambodia


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

it's been commented on several times, umpteen other links have been posted pointing out how and why and where those figures come from. 4000 may well be too high, but there are certainly hundreds.  People you choose to ignore, cos it doesnt fit with your prejudices/lifestyle choices.

Oh, and I dont give a flying fuck about some article from Cambodia, it has absolutely no relevance to sex work in the UK. Tho the fact that you have to rely on evidence from one of the poorest countries in the world to justify your view speaks very loudly.  Shame you just dont want to listen.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

dylans said:


> Oh yeah good link
> *
> "Government research shows that there are an estimated 4,000 victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation in the UK at any one time*."
> 
> ...



Instead of attacking the source prove that the content is factually incorrect moron.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> I'm frankly amazed thay anyone could compare the traffic of women for the purposes of prostitution and trafficing of women (or men, indeed) for the purposes of work. The former - and let's make no bones about it - invoves rape. Not just one rape (that would be bad enough), but repeated rapes, several a day, day after day after day


Hmmm. Isn't the fact that rape is an especially despicable form of assault just a hangover from a patriarchal tradition which casts women as reproductive property in the first place? I mean, if we cast aside patriarchy and sexual taboo, is being coerced to sweep floors any better than being coerced to suck dick? Rather assumes that sexual activity bears an intrinsic sense of humiliation.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

dylans said:


> While we are the subject of commenting on peoples posts I notice you have completely ignored the voices of sex workers. Who condemn trafficking legislation
> 
> Care to comment?
> http://www.channels.com/episodes/sho...aw-in-Cambodia



....what does this prove? That there are _some_ sex workers opposed to trafficking legislation...well bugger me backwards with an old market vegetable. There are _actually_ sex workers who don't agree with legislation of trafficking....I would never have thought that. Thank you for enlightening us


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Hmmm. Isn't the fact that rape is an especially despicable form of assault just a hangover from a patriarchal tradition which casts women as reproductive property in the first place? I mean, if we cast aside patriarchy and sexual taboo, is being coerced to sweep floors any better than being coerced to suck dick? Rather assumes sexual activity bears an intrinsic sense of humiliation.



Well, I suppose you could always tell women who have suffered the emotional and physical truama of a rape (let alone multiple rapes) that what they are thinking and feeling is just "a hangover from a patriarchal tradition"!

I hesitate to give anyone careers advice, but i don't think you'd be cut out to work in a rape crisis centre.

Happie Chappie


----------



## innit (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> Well, I suppose you could always tell women who have suffered the emotional and physical truama of a rape (let alone multiple rapes) that what they are thinking and feeling is just "a hangover from a patriarchal tradition"!
> 
> I hesitate to give anyone careers advice, but i don't think you'd be cut out to work in a rape crisis centre.
> 
> Happie Chappie



I think I love you


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Aren't you being a little bit of victim junkie here, as if the emotional suffering of rape victims (which varies from person-to-person depending on their values) has some kind of connection to the question of to what extent we should regulate sexual activity, as opposed to, say, floor cleaning activity?


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

innit said:


> I think I love you



I don't think there is a smilie for "thank you" so I'll have to say it in good old-fashioned words!

Happie Chappie


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

why dont we just ignore carousel, whose moronic 'look at me, i'm wadical' nonsense will onmly detract from any sane comments on the thread.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Jesus. You'll be talking about the importance of "loving relationships" next. How do you two feel about porn? I mean does the presence of a camera suddenly make this prostitution/rape OK?


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Aren't you being a little bit of victim junkie here, as if the emotional suffering of rape victims (which varies from person-to-person depending on their values) has some kind of connection to the question of to what extent we should regulate sexual activity, as opposed to, say, floor cleaning activity?



I'm not sure who this comment is directed at, but if it's me, then I'm not a "victim junkie" as you so delicately put it, but then I've never been raped. But I have had partners who have, and let me tell you it taught me a hell of a lot and certainly shaped my views about the matter.

In fact, rape does have a connection "to the question of to what extent we should regulate sexual activity" because when women are forced into prostitution, for whatever reason, they are being raped. 

By the way, I meant to add to my previous post that mentioned rape crisis centres - the clue is in the name, ie "crisis". If you can point me to a "cleaner's crisis centre" set up to deal with the physical and emotional fall out from sweeping floors, please be my guest.

Happie Chappie


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Jesus. You'll be talking about the importance of "loving relationships" next. How do you two feel about porn? I mean does the presence of a camera suddenly make this prostitution/rape OK?



I'm not sure what gender you are and it probably doesn't make a great deal of difference to the argument.

But if you're telling me that, given a choice, you'd rather be raped than sweep floors, fine. It certainly wouldn't be my choice.

Happie Chappie


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Yeah. Sex is bound deep into our reptile brains, alongside our fight or flight mechanism. To that extent it’s special and we carry all kinds of magical belief as to its significance. You’re making the case that sex is special. The same case put by censors and prohibitionists everywhere. It's a traditional belief and lies at the heart of the debate as to what extent sexual activity should be specially regulated.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Yeah. Sex is bound deep into our reptile brains, alongside our fight or flight mechanism. To that extent it’s special and we carry all kinds of magical belief as to its significance. You’re making the case that sex is special. The same case put by censors and prohibitionists everywhere. It's a traditional belief and lies at the heart of the debate as to what extent sexual activity should be specially regulated.



I'm not sure what point you're making, but I'm not a "censor and prohibitionist". As it happens, I think prostitution should be legalised and regulated.  I also have what I regard as a liberal attitude to sex, providing that it is CONSENSUAL. THAT's where I draw my line.

Happie Chappie


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Uh uh. Well to what extent is someone sweeping floors any more consensual? You're projecting your own idea of sex as especially humiliating or degrading onto society at large. Which is fine I suppose. A spectrum of belief. Mary Whitehouse vs Cynthia Payne.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> I'm not sure what point you're making, but I'm not a "censor and prohibitionist". As it happens, I think prostitution should be legalised and regulated.  I also have what I regard as a liberal attitude to sex, providing that it is CONSENSUAL. THAT's where I draw my line.
> 
> Happie Chappie



his only point is 'me, me, me' - which is why he doesn't care less about posting a contradictory, illogical, and incoherent comment, as long as we all talk about him.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Belboid, the only one talking about "me" is "you".


> As it happens, I think prostitution should be legalised and regulated


You think rape should be legalised and regulated? Nah. How are you going to measure the extent to which prostitution is consensual? How un-consensual does it have to be before your indignation kicks in? Sounds like you’re perfectly happy for rich kids to fuck who they like, as soon as someone with less money does it and makes something out of it, you’re ready to cry rape.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Hmmm. Isn't the fact that rape is an especially despicable form of assault just a hangover from a patriarchal tradition which casts women as reproductive property in the first place? I mean, if we cast aside patriarchy and sexual taboo, is being coerced to sweep floors any better than being coerced to suck dick? Rather assumes that sexual activity bears an intrinsic sense of humiliation.



  Please tell me this is a joke


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

oh well, the little egomaniac comes on and fucks another thread up.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Please tell me this is a joke


Like I say. Sexual matters are bound close to our basic fight-or-flight response. Does their especially emotive nature warrant special regulation of sexual activity? It would seem so. With such a diverse set of values on the matter, no wonder the question of prostitution is so heavily contested. I mean, what we each believe about it is bound real close to our characters to the extent that we really can’t entertain what other people might think about it without becoming overexcited.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Like I say. Sexual matters are bound close to our basic fight-or-flight response. Does their especially emotive nature warrant special regulation of sexual activity?



I wonder how long it would before someone trots out the old nature nurture response


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

double post


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> I wonder how long it would before someone trots out the old nature nurture response


No doubt we'll discover some combination of alleles which determine attitudes towards sex at some point. Nature vs nurture only has relevance if one reveres one over the other, I suppose. I mean, we may as well be arguing to what extent "cruelty" is acceptable.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Belboid, the only one talking about "me" is "you".
> 
> You think rape should be legalised and regulated? Nah. How are you going to measure the extent to which prostitution is consensual? How un-consensual does it have to be before your indignation kicks in? Sounds like you’re perfectly happy for rich kids to fuck who they like, as soon as someone with less money does it and makes something out of it, you’re ready to cry rape.



Either you are not reading what I have written properly, skipping out key words such as "forced", or you are particularly dim.

Let me spell it out for you - I accept that SOME women are not coerced into prostitution, but choose to be prostitutes. I believe that is their choice, provided the choice is made of their own free will. That trade should be leaglised and regulated. 

By the way, I also happen to believe that the minority of prostitutes who CHOOSE to work in the sex trade exercise a great deal of control over their work, eg, CHOOSING, the clients they work with, CHOOSING whether they wish to work on certain days or not, CHOOSING not to be with a certain client if they feel threatened, CHOOSING not to have 20 clients a day, CHOOSING not to engage in certain sexual activities that they don't like, and so on.

Women who are FORCED into prostitution are, in the main, not able to exercise such choice, and so are being raped.

I hope this clears up matters for you.

Happie Chappie


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

So how do you measure the extent to which they've chosen to do it? How do measure the extent to which one chooses to do any job?

Next time the plumber or pizza delivery chap comes round, what do I do? Check to make sure they really, really want to be a plumber before allowing them to service my boiler?


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> So how do you measure the extent to which they've chosen to do it? How do measure the extent to which one chooses to do any job?
> 
> Next time the plumber or pizza delivery chap comes round, what do I do? Check to make sure they really, really want to be a plumber before allowing them to service my boiler?



FFS - perhaps most people are "forced" to work if by that you mean the coercion is based on an economic imperative, ie they need money to live.

But if you can't recognise there is a world of difference between delivering a pizza and having sex with multiple clients - many of whom make your flesh crawl - against your will, every day of the week, often having to endure a beating into the bargain, then I suggest you work in a low-rent, back street, brothel for a few months, having most of your "earnings" taken by pimps, and then come back and report on your liberating experience.

Happie Chappie


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

> But if you can't recognise there is a world of difference between delivering a pizza and having sex with multiple clients...


I recognise sex is "special" to you and lots of other normal people. Hence the controversy over prostitution and the unique position sexual matters hold in religious and political belief. However you do keep raising the sexual taboo as a way of avoiding setting out how you'll measure the extent to which a prostitute is being coerced beyond the normal economic coercion applied to any task. Such as dentistry, say, which also involves multiple clients of questionable aesthetics.


> … I suggest you work in a low-rent, back street, brothel for a few months, having most of your "earnings" taken by pimps


Common mistake. It’s not that I don’t appreciate how miserable people are. I just query the extent to which their suffering really matters.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> FFS - perhaps most people are "forced" to work if by that you mean the coercion is based on an economic imperative, ie they need money to live.
> 
> But if you can't recognise there is a world of difference between delivering a pizza and having sex with multiple clients - many of whom make your flesh crawl - against your will, every day of the week, often having to endure a beating into the bargain, then I suggest you work in a low-rent, back street, brothel for a few months, having most of your "earnings" taken by pimps, and then come back and report on your liberating experience.
> 
> Happie Chappie


How prevalent is this kind of thing, in your experience?


----------



## Rod Sleeves (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> . I just query the extent to which their suffering really matters.



I think it helps to visualise the world as a vast rubber blanket and people's individual units of misery as lead weights, the bigger the misery, the more closely they are packed together, the bigger the dip they create, and the easier for others to slide in, thereby creating an even bigger dip that can drag even more people in. Until the very fabric is in danger of ripping, tearing everything apart.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Rod Sleeves said:


> I think it helps to visualise the world as a vast rubber blanket and people's individual units of misery as lead weights, the bigger the misery, the more closely they are packed together, the bigger the dip they create, and the easier for others to slide in, thereby creating an even bigger dip that can drag even more people in. Until the very fabric is in danger of ripping, tearing everything apart.




Nice.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> I recognise sex is "special" to you and lots of other normal people. Hence the controversy over prostitution and the unique position sexual matters hold in religious and political belief. However you do keep raising the sexual taboo as a way of avoiding setting out how you'll measure the extent to which a prostitute is being coerced beyond the normal economic coercion applied to any task. Such as dentistry, say, which also involves multiple clients of questionable aesthetics.
> 
> Common mistake. It’s not that I don’t appreciate how miserable people are. I just query the extent to which their suffering really matters.



You could always ask people who work in the sex trade (although that might be a skewed sample as those who are coerced may not be available for interview) and/or you could ask those who have got out of the profession. 

I don't agree with your views - I think they are mostly misguided. However, you last sentence quoted above isn't misguided - it's callous, unthinking and downright shocking that someone could be so indifferent to human misery.

Happie Chappie


----------



## IMR (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> No doubt we'll discover some combination of alleles which determine attitudes towards sex at some point.



Why 'alleles' and not 'genes'?


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

<dp>


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> However you do keep raising the sexual taboo as a way of avoiding setting out how you'll measure the extent to which a prostitute is being coerced beyond the normal economic coercion applied to any task.



but that has been answered already, you just chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your self-centred view of the universe.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

IMR said:


> Why 'alleles' and not 'genes'?



to show that he is oh so much more intelligent than anyone else here.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

I have a question for those who see prostitution as no more than just another job, and no worse than say sweeping floor or delivering pizzas or servicing boilers:

How many pizza delivery people, cleaners, plumbers and so on are murdered during the course of, and because of, their employment?

You may want to compare your answer to the number of prostitutes murdered.

Happie Chappie


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

you could extend that to general physical and sexual assault. A comparison of average life expectancy would be depressingly illuminating as well


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Rod Sleeves said:


> I think it helps to visualise the world as a vast rubber blanket and people's individual units of misery as lead weights, the bigger the misery, the more closely they are packed together, the bigger the dip they create, and the easier for others to slide in, thereby creating an even bigger dip that can drag even more people in. Until the very fabric is in danger of ripping, tearing everything apart.


Sounds good. Something to look forward to there.


IMR said:


> Why 'alleles' and not 'genes'?


The gene is the site, the allele is the variant.


happie chappie said:


> it's callous, unthinking and downright shocking that someone could be so indifferent to human misery.


I’m sure I could find someone even more sanctimonious than you that would be shocked at the fact you don’t wake up in a cold sweat every night over the plight of the starving millions or trafficked sex slaves or whatever.


----------



## IMR (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> The gene is the site, the allele is the variant.



Still not sure why you used the term 'allele' though. Not saying there might not be a good reason, just curious as to your reason.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> I’m sure I could find someone even more sanctimonious than you that would be shocked at the fact you don’t wake up in a cold sweat every night over the plight of the starving millions or trafficked sex slaves or whatever.



Well, I'm sure you could but, unlike you, I'm not interested in engaging in a race to the bottom.

Happie Chappie


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> you could extend that to general physical and sexual assault. A comparison of average life expectancy would be depressingly illuminating as well



....as well as the prostitutes that suffer deep psychological scars from their work.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> How many pizza delivery people, cleaners, plumbers and so on are murdered during the course of, and because of, their employment?


Yeah well. You could as easily abolish Policing and Hip Hop Production based on that premise. Where do you get the idea we’re obliged to ban dangerous jobs? What makes you think Evil Knevil wasn’t “coerced” by poverty into jumping over those busses? Your patriarchal prejudices? Your fawning reverence for victim hood?


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

IMR said:


> Still not sure why you used the term 'allele' though. Not saying there might not be a good reason, just curious as to your reason.


I think it's a cool word. Like belboid says I suppose. I don't share his attention-grabbing-is-a-sin honour code.


Grandma Death said:


> ...as well as the prostitutes that suffer deep psychological scars from their work.


....as well as the <insert job of choice here> that suffer deep psychological scars from their work. The cleaners I know suffer distress or depression from the drudgery of the job for sure.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

from the ridiculous to the completely fucking barking.


----------



## IMR (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel: Not bothered about attention grabbing. Was just assessing your level of intelligence.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

The puritans can't explain why some women prefer to sell sex than to work for a pittance as a checkout girl, or cleaner.

That's why the silly numpties have to pretend it's normal for prostitutes to be  coerced into their line of work


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> ....as well as the <insert job of choice here> that suffer deep psychological scars from their work. The cleaners I know suffer distress or depression from the drudgery of the job for sure.



...you really are clutching at straws now aren't you.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> The puritans can't explain why some women prefer to sell sex than to work for a pittance as a checkout girl, or cleaner.
> 
> That's why the silly numpties have to pretend it's normal for prostitutes to be  coerced into their line of work



wtf are you on about? would you care to make sense?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> The puritans can't explain why some women prefer to sell sex than to work for a pittance as a checkout girl, or cleaner.



Oh please do fuck off with your facile labels.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

No, I'm not fucking off, you silly man.

Not until you call off your old tired ethics.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Yeah well. You could as easily abolish Policing and Hip Hop Production based on that premise. Where do you get the idea we’re obliged to ban dangerous jobs? What makes you think Evil Knevil wasn’t “coerced” by poverty into jumping over those busses? Your patriarchal prejudices? Your fawning reverence for victim hood?



You do seem prone to not understanding what I have written. I have not called for prositution to be abolished, quite the opposite, as I have already stated. I am, however, for the abolition of FORCED prostitution. 

In any case, you analogy with the police is way off the mark. In the police force, for example, the rate of murder is relatively low, certainly compared to prostitution. There is also a defined career structure, should you wish to take advantage of it. There are all the benefits of employment - pensions, sick pay, protection under employment legislation - all of which are conspicoulsy absent from prostitution. 

Happie Chappie


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

I pass a Turing test. That's about it.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

> I am, however, for the abolition of FORCED prostitution.


Are you for the abolition of FORCED cleaning?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Come on, all you heroic (male) defenders of womens rights! Come on all you blokes with such a strong desire to tell women what they can do with their own bodies! Come on you Puritans!

Come on ... and answer this ... why do some women prefer sex work, to being an office or shop skivvy?

What's your theory for this rather obvious and ordinary observation*?

* "Jackboot Jackie told me they are all mostly coerced", doesn't cut it as an answer, I'm afraid.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> No, I'm not fucking off, you silly man.
> 
> Not until you call off your old tired ethics.



completely and utterly irrelevant link.  Read the thread before making such stupid 'comments' (not that they actually are, you're just being a sad twat riding on carousels coat tails, which must be a wonderful experience for all concerned)


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Come on ... and answer this ... why do some women prefer sex work, to being an office or shop skivvy?



that isn't actually relevant to the thread at all. Some people enjoy rough sex, but that would hardly justify hitting every woman you slept with, would it?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

A quick cursory glance at Google Scholar shows approx 116,000 studies on 'long term studies into psychological effects of prostitution on prostitutes'

Surprisingly cant find much academic research on 'long term studies into psychological effects of cleaning on cleaners' 

Funny that.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

> There are all the benefits of employment - pensions, sick pay, protection under employment legislation - all of which are conspicoulsy absent from prostitution.


Or for that matter any self employed profession. You just don't like the idea of girls going out and sucking dick for cash. You can't bring yourself to advocate banning it per se, but you struggle to see why anyone'd do it without being especially coerced or mentally distressed.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Are you for the abolition of FORCED cleaning?



No - Im not because, as I think I have already established, I DOT NOT equate the physical and psychological trauma resulting from FORCED prostitution with cleaning floors, servicing boilers or delivering pizzas. 

Happie Chappie


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> A quick cursory glance at Google Scholar shows approx 116,000 studies on 'long term studies into psychological effects of prostitution on prostitutes'
> 
> Surprisingly cant find much academic research on 'long term studies into psychological effects of cleaning on cleaners'
> 
> Funny that.


Sex sells. Funny that. People aren't titillated by depressed cleaners in the same way as bit of scandal and vice.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

> I DOT NOT equate the physical and psychological trauma resulting from FORCED prostitution with cleaning floors, servicing boilers or delivering pizzas.


Traditional sexual taboo. You dropped the FORCED from the cleaning floors and so on there by the way. Was that on purpose?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> You just don't like the idea of girls going out and sucking dick for cash. You can't bring yourself to advocate banning it per se, but you struggle to see why anyone'd do it without being especially coerced or mentally distressed.




Maybe that's because the overwhelming majority of individuals don't choose prostitution as a career choice. Perhaps its you struggling with that fact?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> completely and utterly irrelevant link.  Read the thread before making such stupid 'comments' (not that they actually are, you're just being a sad twat riding on carousels coat tails, which must be a wonderful experience for all concerned)


This is from that "completely and utterly irrelevant link" ... 





> COYOTE ("Call Off Your Tired Ethics") was founded by Margo St. James in 1973. COYOTE works for the rights of all sex workers: strippers, phone operators, prostitutes, porn actresses etc. of all genders and persuasions. COYOTE supports programs to assist sex workers in their choice to change their occupation, works to prevent the scapegoating of sex workers for AIDS and other STDs, and to educate sex workers, their clients and the general public about safe sex. COYOTE is a member of The North American Task Force on Prostitution,  and The International Committee for Prostitutes' Rights .


Stupid? Irrelevant?

No, but those adjectives nicely describe the puritan control freaks


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Maybe that's because the overwhelming majority of individuals don't choose prostitution as a career choice. Perhaps its you struggling with that fact?


The overwhelming majority of individuals don't choose cleaner as a career choice. I don't struggle with the fact, I struggle over why it matters. Are we going to be sucked through a hole in the rubber mat of misery?


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Come on, all you heroic (male) defenders of womens rights! Come on all you blokes with such a strong desire to tell women what they can do with their own bodies! Come on you Puritans!



Because there's no male sex workers, are there?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Maybe that's because the overwhelming majority of individuals don't choose prostitution as a career choice. Perhaps its you struggling with that fact?


sure, but why should some bloke like you say no one is allowed to make that choice?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> Because there's no male sex workers, are there?


You think? 

Stupid boy!


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Sex sells. Funny that. People aren't titillated by depressed cleaners in the same way as bit of scandal and vice.



Arrr thats it...the countless studies on the subject are on the same parr as a top model advertising a car. Genius. Whatever next.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

We're all prostitutes.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> sure, but why should some bloke like you say no one is allowed to make that choice?



Point exactly where Ive said that? Or are you going down the same route of stupidity that other moron dylan did on this very same thread?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> I have a question for those who see prostitution as no more than just another job, and no worse than say sweeping floor or delivering pizzas or servicing boilers:
> 
> How many pizza delivery people, cleaners, plumbers and so on are murdered during the course of, and because of, their employment?
> 
> ...



Don't bother.  You'll get the usual suspects telling you that you're a moral puritan by daring to think critically about any qualitative differences between stacking shelves and selling sex.  I find it rather creepy that certain people are so keen to  rationlise the myth of the "happy whore".  I can only guess at their motives.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> We're all tits.




...edited for clarity.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

> Arrr thats it...the countless studies on the subject are on the same parr as a top model advertising a car. Genius. Whatever next.


Ha ha. Don't tell me you're one of those that sneer at fickle superficial consumer culture. That makes sense.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Are these your ethics ... 





> *Human Rights*
> Guarantee prostitutes all human rights and civil liberties, including the freedom of speech, travel, immigration, work, marriage, and motherhood and the right to unemployment insurance, health insurance and housing.
> Grant asylum to anyone denied human rights on the basis of a "crime of status," be it prostitution or homosexuality.
> 
> source


What, then?


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Or for that matter any self employed profession. You just don't like the idea of girls going out and sucking dick for cash. You can't bring yourself to advocate banning it per se, but you struggle to see why anyone'd do it without being especially coerced or mentally distressed.



Actually, I'm coming round to the view that you aren't misguided, but just plain stupid.

It's you who introduced the comparison with the police, not me. I was merely pointing out what a false analogy it is, both in terms of the murder rate and the terms and conditions of employment on offer.

As you seem hard of thinking, let me repeat - I accept some women choose to be prostitutes without any coercion. Some make a very good living and even enjoy their work. BUT, as I have already stated, this most often happens when they can exercise a great dal of control over their work. This is NOT the case when women are coerced. They have little or no control.

I'm perfectly happy for women to "going out and sucking dick for cash" if that's their choice, made of their own free will. 

Happie Chappie


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> This is from that "completely and utterly irrelevant link" ... Stupid? Irrelevant?
> 
> No, but those adjectives nicely describe the puritan control freaks



yes, completely irrelevant. 

If you are too stupid to tell the difference between an organisation set up to support those who have chosen to be sex workers and those who are forced into the industry, that's your problem.

The fact that you have to label anyone who disagrees with you a 'puritan control freak' simply shows you re unable to marshall an actual argument.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> The puritans can't explain why some women prefer to sell sex than to work for a pittance as a checkout girl, or cleaner.
> 
> That's why the silly numpties have to pretend it's normal for prostitutes to be  coerced into their line of work



IME, it's generally to with having been abused and coercive relationships being normalised.

You seem awfully keen to support this myth of free choice and the happy hooker.  Creepy.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Point exactly where Ive said that? Or are you going down the same route of stupidity that other moron dylan did on this very same thread?


So, you are not calling for legal sanctions against prostitutes, you just wanted to make your moral condemnation clear.

Right on, guy!


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Don't bother.  You'll get the usual suspects telling you that you're a moral puritan by daring to think critically about any qualitative differences between stacking shelves and selling sex.  I find it rather creepy that certain people are so keen to  rationlise the myth of the "happy whore".  I can only guess at their motives.


I don't think they're happy. I just don't think we're obliged to make them any happier than the shelf stacker. You find it creepy because you carry a little voice inside telling you that sex is special. You're full of indignation about abuse and coercion. The political equivalent of ambulance chasing.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> The overwhelming majority of individuals don't choose cleaner as a career choice. I don't struggle with the fact, I struggle over why it matters. Are we going to be sucked through a hole in the rubber mat of misery?



My mother was a cleaner for 20 yrs. I'm just wondering if I was to put it to her that her 'choice' of career and the job she did was somehow on the same level as prostitution what her response would be.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

funny how the comments re murders and assaults on sex workers have been conveniently ignored by those who like getting their kicks from seeing women abused


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> So, you are not calling for legal sanctions against prostitutes, you just wanted to make your moral condemnation clear.
> 
> Right on, guy!



Well if you even bothered to read my posts and indeed my position on other threads of this nature you wouldn't even have to have asked that question.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> IME, it's generally to with having been abused and coercive relationships being normalised.
> 
> You seem awfully keen to support this myth of free choice and the happy hooker.  Creepy.


Nasty.

But I have to point out that would seem to be a reflection of your own depraved way of thinking ~ it certainly does not flow from anything I've written.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Traditional sexual taboo. You dropped the FORCED from the cleaning floors and so on there by the way. Was that on purpose?



No, a mistake. Put "forced" back in -it makes no difference to the substance of my argument. All things being equal, NO amount of coercion to clean a floor equates to coercion to be a prostitute.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Don't bother.  You'll get the usual suspects telling you that you're a moral puritan by daring to think critically about any qualitative differences between stacking shelves and selling sex.  I find it rather creepy that certain people are so keen to  rationlise the myth of the "happy whore".  I can only guess at their motives.



Yep, agreed - their arguments aren't totally without merit but they seem way too enthusiastic and single-minded about making them.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> The fact that you have to label anyone who disagrees with you a 'puritan control freak' simply shows you re unable to marshall an actual argument.



Its easier to label than debate with....Jonti can't see that.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> No, a mistake. Put "forced" back in -it makes no difference to the substance of my argument. All things being equal, NO amount of coercion to clean a floor equates to coercion to be a prostitute.





Grandma Death said:


> My mother was a cleaner for 20 yrs. I'm just wondering if I was to put it to her that her 'choice' of career and the job she did was somehow on the same level as prostitution what her response would be.


Because sex is special. It should be between people who wuv each other vewy much and not sullied by commerce. Turned into some cheap commodity. Ha ha.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Well if you even bothered to read my posts and indeed my position on other threads of this nature you wouldn't even have to have asked that question.


You're not usually so sneerily self-righteous and finger-wagging.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> Actually, I'm coming round to the view that you aren't misguided, but just plain stupid.



I wouldn't even say he/she is that good actually.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Somethings are not up for negotiation.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> This is from that "completely and utterly irrelevant link" ... Stupid? Irrelevant?
> 
> No, but those adjectives nicely describe the puritan control freaks



As I said earlier - you can be all for sex workers organising for their rights, yet still think critically about sex work.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> You're not usually so sneerily self-righteous and finger-wagging.



There you go again. Why don't you try debating instead labelling-or is that too hard for you?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> You think?
> 
> Stupid boy!



you are a bit stupid, yes


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Nasty.
> 
> But I have to point out that would seem to be a reflection of your own depraved way of thinking ~ it certainly does not flow from anything I've written.



You're a punter aren't you?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> As I said earlier - you can be all for sex workers organising for their rights, yet still think critically about sex work.


Yes.

But again and again from you ... the sneer, the curled lip, the "no-one would ever do that, not if they were ... like me".


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Yes.
> 
> But again and again from you ... the sneer, the curled lip, the "no-one would ever do that, not if they were ... like me".



You're awfully keen to defend something.  You're a punter aren't you?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You're a punter aren't you?


You don't need to be a punter to know Jacqui Smith and her apologists are throughly nasty pieces of work.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> You don't need to be a punter to know Jacqui Smith and her apologists are throughly nasty pieces of work.




Are you a punter....yes or no?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> You don't need to be a punter to know Jacqui Smith and her apologists are throughly nasty pieces of work.



You are though aren't you?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

* points and laughs at puritans trying to whip up a witch hunt

You guys are real filth, aren't you


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> My mother was a cleaner for 20 yrs. I'm just wondering if I was to put it to her that her 'choice' of career and the job she did was somehow on the same level as prostitution what her response would be.


Does she twitch at the curtain pouring scorn on the local party girls as they walk past in their heels and skirts. Cheap tarts. Don’t they have any self respect? I know what you mean Grandma, one of my girlfriends is quite open in her belief that female peacocking and using sex to earn money is morally reprehensible. Luckily enough, she also recognises that it’s a magical belief that doesn’t stand up to critical analysis.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> * points and laughs at puritan trying to whip up a witch hunt



This isn't about a 'witch hunt'....don't flatter yourself.

You shouldn't have any moral objection to admitting in public that you're a punter surely?


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You're a punter aren't you?



Actually, that's a really interesting question. Perhaps people contributing to the thread should declare whether or not they are, or have been, punters. I think that would be highly relevant to the position they are taking.

I'll start - no I have not. I have thought about in on occasion. But the main reason why have chosen not to is that I could never be entirely sure whether or not (in my case) the woman really was engaged in sex work of her own free will - entirely consistent with my previous posts. 

Happie Chappie


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Try reading here, anyone can inform themselves ...

punter.net

Like many similar pronouncements on sex work, quite a few of the views on this thread seem to be based more on thinly veiled distaste and a desire to do all they can to stick an oar in – irrespective of the consequences for the women (and men) involved in it – than any informed response to the issues.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

I think they see a punter as being something intrinsically dishonourable. I know boys who easily spend a week’s wages in one night successfully wining and dining a girl into the sack. What’s the difference really? A question of degrees of separation. The extent to which you can kid yourself you fall within your own moral boundaries.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> * points and laughs at puritans trying to whip up a witch hunt
> 
> You guys are real filth, aren't you



So asking a question, asking you declare your interests is now a "witch hunt"?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> Actually, that's a really interesting question. Perhaps people contributing to the thread should declare whether or not they are, or have been, punters. I think that would be highly relevant to the position they are taking.
> 
> I'll start - no I have not. I have thought about in on occasion. But the main reason why have chosen not to is that I could never be entirely sure whether or not (in my case) the woman really was engaged in sex work of her own free will - entirely consistent with my previous posts.
> 
> Happie Chappie



Nope, never been a punter.  I do currently work with male sex workers in a drug project and have worked with female sex workers in a drug project.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> I know what you mean Grandma, one of my girlfriends is quite open in her belief that female peacocking and using sex to earn money is morally reprehensible. Luckily enough, she also recognises that it’s a magical belief that doesn’t stand up to critical analysis.



...yes of course the old 'Its all subjective morals at the end of the day' argument. Tiresomely rolled out time and time again.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Try reading here, anyone can inform themselves ...
> 
> punter.net
> 
> Like many similar pronouncements on sex work, quite a few of the views on this thread seem to be based more on thinly veiled distaste and a desire to do all they can to stick an oar in – irrespective of the consequences for the women (and men) involved in it – than any informed response to the issues.



My views are informed by having been a support worker for female sex workers (in a drug project) and currently working in a specific male sex worker project.

What are your views informed by?


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:
			
		

> could never be entirely sure whether or not (in my case) the woman really was engaged in sex work of her own free will


Exactly. And seeing as you’re against forced prostitution, that’s tantamount to being against prostitution per se. You can’t measure the extent to which she’s been coerced, so you have to assume she’s been coerced to much otherwise your conscience would trouble you. And you pride yourself on your strength of moral conscience. It’s what it’s all about. That's way consistency is important to you as well. You magically believe that contradictions are evidence against a belief system’s viability.



			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> My views are informed by having been a support worker for female sex workers (in a drug project) and currently working in a specific male sex worker project.


I would say your choice of job was informed by your views.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> I think they see a punter as being something intrinsically dishonourable. I know boys who easily spend a week’s wages in one night successfully wining and dining a girl into the sack. What’s the difference really? A question of degrees of separation. The extent to which you can kid yourself you fall within your own moral boundaries.



You're like a stuck record you know that?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> You're like a stuck record you know that?



I find it helps to ignore him and his Nietzsche obsession.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> I think they see a punter as being something intrinsically dishonourable. I know boys who easily spend a week’s wages in one night successfully wining and dining a girl into the sack. What’s the difference really? A question of degrees of separation. The extent to which you can kid yourself you fall within your own moral boundaries.


They do seem sure that ethical reasons alone could not possibly be enough to persuade a person to support the aims of coyote.

Very


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> Actually, that's a really interesting question. Perhaps people contributing to the thread should declare whether or not they are, or have been, punters. I think that would be highly relevant to the position they are taking.
> 
> I'll start - no I have not. I have thought about in on occasion. But the main reason why have chosen not to is that I could never be entirely sure whether or not (in my case) the woman really was engaged in sex work of her own free will - entirely consistent with my previous posts.
> 
> Happie Chappie



Never been a punter. My experiences are limited to working in social housing, support work and the voluntary sector for over a decade now-in all three have I dealt with prostitutes/ex prostitutes. I've never met one who stated they have gone down the path of prostitution through choice or indeed they enjoyed the work they did. Anecdotal I know.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> They do seem sure that no-one could have ethical reasons for supporting the aims of coyote.
> 
> Very



You're not reading what people write are you?  Specifically
"you can be all for sex workers organising for their rights, yet still think critically about sex work"


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Exactly. And seeing as you’re against forced prostitution, that’s tantamount to being against prostitution per se. You can’t measure the extent to which she’s been coerced, so you have to assume she’s been coerced to much otherwise your conscience would trouble you. And you pride yourself on your strength of moral conscience. It’s what it’s all about.



Err, yes I have a moral conscience. I don't happen to think that that's a bad thing, quite the opposite, in fact.

By castigating me about my moral conscience implies you don't have one, certainly with regard to prostitution. 

Anything goes as long as the punter's got the necessary cash, eh?

Happie Chappie


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You're not reading what people write are you?  Specifically
> "you can be all for sex workers organising for their rights, yet still think critically about sex work"




I read that, and responded to it.

Here.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I read that, and responded to it.
> 
> Here.



That's not a proper response, that's a highly defensive attack.

Care to respond properly?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Despite what you said above, I did read what you said, I quoted you and answered you.

You just don't like the answer you got.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I've answered; you just don't like the answer you got.



No I didn't because it didn't actually respond to what I wrote.  You responded by attacking me, not responding to my point.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappy said:
			
		

> By castigating me about my moral conscience implies you don't have one, certainly with regard to prostitution.


I'm not castigating. Just pointing out the futility of developing a rational case to justify your beliefs when really you’re just expressing a deep emotional conviction. It’s cool man. No-one’s going to crucify you.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

What are your views on this subject informed by Jonti?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> I think they see a punter as being something intrinsically dishonourable. I know boys who easily spend a week’s wages in one night successfully wining and dining a girl into the sack. What’s the difference really? A question of degrees of separation. The extent to which you can kid yourself you fall within your own moral boundaries.


They see sexual favours for reward  as being something intrinsically dishonourable.

This is going to make them unhappy with human life on planet earth.  And unhappy with the bonobos too.

((((bonobos))))


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

still no response from our two abuse lovers on the use of violence against sex workers. is it not relevant?  or are those bruises just a magical belief?  or maybe the women actually dont mind being assaulted, better than cleaning, innit?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> What are your views on this subject informed by Jonti?


John Stuart Mill.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> They see sexual favours for reward  as being something intrinsically dishonourable.



Have you slept with or currently sleep with prostitutes?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> still no response from our two abuse lovers on the use of violence against sex workers. is it not relevant?  or are those bruises just a magical belief?  or maybe the women actually dont mind being assaulted, better than cleaning, innit?


who are you slurring now?


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

well, have you responded? Why have you ignored the points about violence?  Something to be ashamed of? (as well as your use of prostitutes, which you clearly are embarassed about at least)


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Have you slept with or currently sleep with prostitutes?


Take your unpleasant prurience and hide it away from decent society, there's a good chap. 





> _Are you now or have you ever been a communist?_


You can fuck off with that crap


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

> still no response from our two abuse lovers on the use of violence against sex workers.


Fucking no point asking me. I actively enjoy experiencing civilisation crumble into a sick carnival of decadence, violence and vice. All for it. I once paid 2 grand for sex with a hot page 3 girl. She wore what I wanted, I could put it where I liked. I enjoyed it so much, I bought the company. Victor Kiam style.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> well, have you responded? Why have you ignored the points about violence?  Something to be ashamed of? (as well as your use of prostitutes, which you clearly are embarassed about at least)


Were you referring to me as an _abuse lover_?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Take your unpleasant prurience and hide it away from decent society, there's a good chap. You can fuck off with that crap



.....so thats a yes then? Why can't you admit it?


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Were you referring to me as an _abuse lover_?



yes

all your comments on the thread back me up too


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> .....so thats a yes then? Why can't you admit it?


Now you're being silly, as well as sinister.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> yes
> 
> all your comments on the thread back me up too


That's just filthy.

You guys really are low.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

A friend of mine is an Illegal Cage Fighter. Abuse lovers. There's a lot of it about.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

How did this thread turn into a mindless puritan sneerathon?


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Did you know there’s an irrational human tendency to believe people who seem to be arguing against their best interests and distrust people making a case in their best interests. Why is that? Must have been useful on the Savannah. Like beta male approach anxiety. Anyone know what that is?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 22, 2009)

Dream






Reality





Louis MacNeice


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Now you're being silly, as well as sinister.



I'm just curious as to the logic as to why somebody seems keen to defend something they are not readily able to admit to.

Don't even answer that-your responses thus far have confirmed what is pretty obvious.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

If that really does make you curious, I would suggest it is because you suffer from a lack of common human decency.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Still no response from those advocating the position that prostitution is no worse than cleaning as to whether they use, or have used prostitutes, I notice.

Surely, if prostitution is no worse than servicing boilers, or cleaning, why not just admit you have, or state you haven't.

What's the problem? A simple "yes" or "no" rather than written contortions or clever answers, will do.

Happie Chappie


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> How did this thread turn into a mindless puritan sneerathon?



it hasn't.  Tho the roles of two or three people who refuse to discuss the realities of violence against sex workers does rather drag it down, I agree.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> If that really does make you curious, I would suggest it is because you suffer from a lack of common human decency.



oh the irony!


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> If that really does make you curious, I would suggest it is because you suffer from a lack of common human decency.



Says the man who sleeps with prostitutes....


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> A friend of mine is an Illegal Cage Fighter. Abuse lovers. There's a lot of it about.



well, at least you can admit you are one.  Tho as you've already said rape is no big deal, you coudln't really say anything else.

As said before, just cos some people enjoy rough sex, thats no excuse to hit your girlfriend.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Says the man who sleeps with prostitutes....


So you say.

If it were true, what would that mean to you?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2009)

I would have thought that the historical and cultural ubiquity of prostitution was sufficient evidence for the absurdity of criminalizing it, and indeed also for its generally voluntary nature.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:
			
		

> I'm just curious as to the logic as to why somebody seems keen to defend something they are not readily able to admit to.


For fucks sake. I just explained why. There’s an irrational human tendency to believe people who seem to be arguing against their best interests and distrust people making a case in their best interests. This is balanced by an (equally irrational) distrust of hypocrisy. The trick is to argue against your apparent self interest without appearing hypocritical.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> So you say.
> 
> If it were true, what would that mean to you?



That you're not being honest with yourself.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> Still no response from those advocating the position that prostitution is no worse than cleaning as to whether they use, or have used prostitutes, I notice.


You are fucking kidding me. Jesus. You'll be accusing me of attention seeking in a minute. I fully intend to offer a girl drugs and cash for sex on Friday actually. I'll have sex for "free" tonight, although to be honest I have had to wine and dine her, at no small expense, to secure my position.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> I'm just curious as to the logic as to why somebody seems keen to defend something they are not readily able to admit toQUOTE]
> 
> The subsequent responses from Jonti and Carousel in particular suggest we are not getting very far with this, so I think we should all assume that they both have and/or still use prostitutes, and contributors to this thread are then free to assess the vailidity of their comments in that light.
> 
> ...


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> You are fucking kidding me. Jesus.



Sorry - is that a "yes" or no". 

No fancy replies, please - it's a fairly simple question. 

Happie Chappie


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> That you're not being honest with yourself.


I'm not sure you know what that word "honest" means; I certainly don't accept this as an honest response. 

Part of the reason for this is that I (now!) know you are someone who likes to use the internet to tell lies about people, cowardly hiding behind a cloak of anonymity.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> Sorry - is that a "yes" or no".
> 
> No fancy replies, please - it's a fairly simple question.
> 
> Happie Chappie


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9855634&postcount=305



			
				happie chappie said:
			
		

> we can all reassess their contributions to the debate should we wish to do so.


What is the debate? What do you imagine is at issue?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I'm not sure you know what that word "honest" means; I certainly don't accept this as an honest response.
> 
> Part of the reason for this is that I (now!) know you are someone who likes to use the internet to tell lies about people, cowardly hiding behind a cloak of anonymity.



....eh..... I think you're confusing me for someone else.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie;9855771][QUOTE=Grandma Death said:


> I'm just curious as to the logic as to why somebody seems keen to defend something they are not readily able to admit toQUOTE]
> 
> The subsequent responses from Jonti and Carousel in particular suggest we are not getting very far with this, so I think we should all assume that they both have and/or still use prostitutes, and contributors to this thread are then free to assess the vailidity of their comments in that light.


And here we have the Taliban logic of our very own puritans.

If you stick up for the right of prostitutes to work without legal repression, you will be repeatedly quizzed as to your own sex life (as if that were somehow relevant).

If you decline to answer, your guilt will be assumed, and your arguments cast aside as being mere self-interest.

Nasty stuff. Very, very low.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9855634&postcount=305



Yes, yes, yes - I've read that post but I've not got a clue what it means. As I've said, just answer the question with a "yes" or "no".

It's interesting that the two main protagonists of the view that prostitution is just like any other job aren't willing to state in anything resembling plain english that they have, or haven't used prostitutes, while those who argue that it isn't just like any other job are happy to give a straight answer to a straight question.

You can all draw your own conclusions  . . 

Happie Chappie


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ....eh..... I think you're confusing me for someone else.


No, I'm not


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti;9855817][QUOTE=happie chappie said:


> And here we have the Taliban logic of our very own puritans.
> 
> If you stick up for the right of prostitutes to work without legal repression, you will be repeatedly quizzed as to your own sex life (as if that were somehow relevant).
> 
> ...



Stop fucking wriggling and answer the question.

Happie Chappie


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> And here we have the Taliban logic of our very own puritans.



Its as logical as calling those who disagree with your views on prostitution 'puritans'.


Now would you care to explain why you think I'm somebody else?


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

I don't see why people can't advocate for sex workers' rights without necessarily wanting to become a customer of the sex industry.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

"Mere" self-interest? Anything else would be hypocrisy.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> No, I'm not



Nope....you're still confusing me.....

Edit....unless of course you think I'm somebody that you've paid to have sex with


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Why is other people's sex life of such interest to you "happie chappie"? 

It has nothing to do with the government being caught lying about the extent of forced prostitution in the UK; nor is it relevant to the repressive measures they are putting through parliament on the back of their lie.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> It has nothing to do with the government being caught lying about the *extent* of forced prostitution in the UK;



aaah, so you DO admit that forced prostitution exists.  Just not as widely as the government claimed.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> Yes, yes, yes - I've read that post but I've not got a clue what it means. As I've said, just answer the question with a "yes" or "no".


Yes, yes, yes. More than that, I run an empire in porn production and escorting. You're turned on you dirty boy. Does your girlfriend have a shaved pussy? We need to know in order to appraise the validity of your position.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2009)

Christ. I'm currently working on a document for an anti-trafficking organisation. Perhaps the people who are coninced that trafficking was a myth would like to tell me why it's estimated to be one of the biggest social problems in the country i currently live and why they've had to set up a 24 hour helpline about it. It's actually cost the country millions in terms of lost revenue and something like 10% of moldovans say they know someone who's been trafficked. OK, that's not very high considering about 1 in 4 of the entire population are working abroad at any one time. But it's enough to disporve this bollocks. 

Some of the arguments are just ridiculous. I'm totally aware that the police in some countries, including moldova, have used the pretext of anti-trafficking to bring in repressive measures against women. But the same is the case with terrorism ffs! Al-Qaeda might not actually exist but terrorism fucking does, even if it barely happens. The reaction is totally disproportional but nobody actually goes as far as saying that terrorism is a myth and that everyone who was there on 9/11 just imagined the whole thing


----------



## dylans (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> funny how the comments re murders and assaults on sex workers have been conveniently ignored by those who like getting their kicks from seeing women abused



You know its this kind of fucking crap that really pisses me off. It is the criminalisation of sex work that leads to exactly that. It is you who cannot concieve that sex work is a valid choice for thousands of people, who  drive sex workers into dangerous conditions where they are prey to abuse. 

The anti trafficking laws serve one purpose and one purpose only, they serve as a weapon to drive sex work underground. All over the world sex workers are arrested, imprisoned, raped and robbed because of the very legislation that you advocate. 
Decriminalise sex work and you allow consenting adults to make their own choices, allow individuals to do what they choose with their own bodies in conditions of safety.
 Offer the same standards of workers rights to sex workers that workers in every other industry enjoy and you will empower them to make their own choices.  Sex workers are not victims to be patronised by you, they are workers like any other and they need workers rights.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

> Perhaps the people who are coninced that trafficking was a myth


No one's saying it's a myth. We're just not losing sleep over it.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Why is other people's sex life of such interest to you "happie chappie"?
> 
> It has nothing to do with the government being caught lying about the extent of forced prostitution in the UK; nor is it relevant to the repressive measures they are putting through parliament on the back of their lie.



I am not interested in other people's sex lives. I am interested, however, when having a debate, in establishing whether the other parties to the debate have an interest to declare that may have a bearing on the position they take. Simple really.

I could keep asking you to answer the actual question in the hope that, at some stage, you will run out of clever, convoluted, ways of not giving a STRAIGHT answer, but frankly life's too short and I'm going to assume you have used prostitutes, AND that has a bearing on your outlook.

Happie Chappie


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Yes, yes, yes. More than that, I run an empire in porn production and escorting. You're turned on you dirty boy. Does your girlfriend have a shaved pussy? We need to know in order to appraise the validity of your position.


Not just that, "happy chappie"; we need to know the frequency and manner of your masturbatory habits.  Just to be able to assess your arguments properly, you understand.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

dylans said:


> All over the world sex workers are arrested, imprisoned, raped and robbed because of the very legislation that you advocate.



God...back again with the assumptions and incredible ability to not read posts


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Not just that, "happy chappie"; we need to know the frequency and manner of your masturbatory habits.  Just to be able to assess your arguments properly, you understand.


If you wank into someone's mouth does that count as a wank or a fuck?

ETA: Someone else's mouth obviously.
ETA2: I think it probably counts as a fuck, especially if they're awake.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Not just that, "happy chappie"; we need to know the frequency and manner of your masturbatory habits.  Just to be able to assess your arguments properly, you understand.



Arrr....deflection humour....


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> No one's saying it's a myth. We're just not losing sleep over it.


It's not a myth; but the extent of the problem has been systematically exaggerated by Jacqui Smith and others as an excuse for repressive legislation.

The legislation currently working through parliament on the basis of that systematic exaggeration will make sex work more dangerous, and do nothing to improve the plight of sex slaves.

Best to be clear who the real abusers are in this matter, I think.


----------



## XR75 (Oct 22, 2009)

I find it ironic on a thread about exaggerating evidence to bring in anti-prositution laws,some posters are doing the same thing to support their opposition to buying sex.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> No one's saying it's a myth. We're just not losing sleep over it.



you haven't read the thread very well then have you?  Dylans was saying exactly that, repeatedly, and in big letters.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

> The legislation currently working through parliament on the basis of that systematic exaggeration will make sex work more dangerous, and do nothing to improve the plight of sex slaves.


I think, like Harman, she's really against the commoditisation of sex. It’s not a million miles away from the other posters and maybe the public at large. Loads of people think sex is kinda special and shouldn’t be bought and sold like pizza. It accounts for its significance in religions. I mean, even Athena took issue with Poseidon fucking in her temple.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

It is far from funny when Jacqui Smith's supporters stoop to attempting to slur opponents of her repressive legislation as punters and abusers.

It is fair enough to decry this as Puritanism.  It's the kind of hardline puritanism that would make untethered and the Taliban equally happy.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> you haven't read the thread very well then have you?  Dylans was saying exactly that, repeatedly, and in big letters.


You've seemed eager to misrepresent me; so I naturally assume you may now be misrepresenting dylan's position as well.

The thought of banging up and punishing prostitutes seems to give some chaps quite a thrill


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Oh I don't know. If all the fogeys and curtain twitchers want to prohibit sundry vice. Well. It's our fault for voting for 'em. Like I say, a girlfriend of mine admits sympathy for Smith's and Harman's position, and at the same time recognises it’s because she doesn’t want young pros getting her share of cock. To a certain extent she sees unrestrained sexual activity as destroying the structure of the family, the moral social order. Gets it from her Dad she reckons. Hot though. I mean, what can you do?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> I think, like Harman, she's really against the commoditisation of sex. It’s not a million miles away from the other posters and maybe the public at large. Loads of people think sex is kinda special and shouldn’t be bought and sold like pizza. It accounts for its significance in religions. I mean, even Athena took issue with Poseidon fucking in her temple.


This is the true position.

Smith and Harman (and maybe some posters on this thread) are convinced that prostitution is a Evil in and of itself.  Therefore, their dishonesty in mobilising repression ~ the lies they've told about trafficking, and the hysteria they've stoked ~ is justified in order to combat this Evil.

It's rubbish, of course.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Well yes. And they hide behind this notion that if it's consensual then it’s OK, whilst at the same not being to imagine when it would be consensual. Which is tantamount to being against prostitution per se. Because sex is not like cleaning. It’s taboo.

I don’t know. I just think about those trafficked cockle pickers that died on the beach. No one called for a cockle picking ban did they? No.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Says the man who sleeps with prostitutes....


Who are you talking about here, and why does it matter to the argument?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Who are you talking about here, and why does it matter to the argument?



In case you missed it.

You've avoided admitting to sleeping with prostitutes....I'm curious as to why you won't admit to something you're keen to defend. Your reply was this:



Jonti said:


> If that really does make you curious, I would suggest it is because you suffer from a lack of common human decency.



There.....do you get it now?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> I don’t know. I just think about those trafficked cockle pickers that died on the beach. No one called for a cockle picking ban did they? No.



Why are you assuming the default position of those who disagree with you is that they want to ban prostitution?


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

How can you tell if it's consensual enough? Besides, what have I said you could possibly disagree with?


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

dylans said:


> You know its this kind of fucking crap that really pisses me off. It is the criminalisation of sex work that leads to exactly that.


absolutely, if you actually read what I've said i nthis thread, you'd know I wholeheartedly agree.



> It is you who cannot concieve that sex work is a valid choice for thousands of people,


again, you haven't read what i have written, as my belief is exactly the opposite of that 



> The anti trafficking laws serve one purpose and one purpose only, they serve as a weapon to drive sex work underground.


wrong.  They can serve that purpose, and Jacqui Smiths plans were indeed full of crap, but it is utterly disingenuous to say that because her plans were shite, they must always be.  Trafficking IS real, should there be no laws against it?  



> Offer the same standards of workers rights to sex workers that workers in every other industry enjoy and you will empower them to make their own choices.  Sex workers are not victims to be patronised by you, they are workers like any other and they need workers rights.



absolutely. And just as I support workers rights, I work to oppose exploitation. So I have no problem with supporting legislation against the gangmasters etc, you remember, the people who led to 23 chinese cockle pickers dying at Morecambe Bay. They are the 'normal' work equivalent to traffickers, and both need opposing.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> I don’t know. I just think about those trafficked cockle pickers that died on the beach. No one called for a cockle picking ban did they? No.



no one has called for a ban on sex work either, so what is your point? Traffickers are not sex workers, they are traffickers.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

"Need" opposing. Ha ha. I fucking love it.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

I have to say on all my years of using Urban this thread qualifies for the highest density of idiots who clearly are struggling to read whats been written.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

> no one has called for a ban on sex work either


Oh I don't know bruv. Don't Smith / Harman what to make it illegal to directly buy sex? I thought they did.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

no one on this thraed, you dishonest dick


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Don't tell me: Dishonesty "needs" opposing. Ha ha. I was only having a little banter with Jonti, you know. It's not like every post has to counter somebody else's.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

in your case it just needs ignoring.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

It "Needs" ignoring. Ho ho. Keep it up big boy.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

well done for making phil dwyer look like a reasonable poster tho, thats quite a feat.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> no, what is disgusting is your deliberate distortion of reality, and the written word.  you may think financial bondage is nothing, you may think that gary glitter wannabe businessmen paying for 12 year olds on a package tour is okay, but i'm less convinced.
> 
> mrs belboid thinks that the researcher said that 10 women were coerced and 2.5% postively 'trafficked'. sadly the only bit on the newsnight site is the studio discusion - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8318629.stm, but there is more detailed studies quoted in a guardian article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated



Have you actually read that Guardian link, Belboid?

You'd do well to - it spells out how the whole "trafficking" thing is complete bollocks.


The main problem in the UK is that the govt., in it's wisdom, decided to eschew the expression given in international law by the 2000 Palermo protocol, that sex trafficking involves *the use of force, fraud or coercion to transport an unwilling victim into sexual exploitation.*

Instead, the UK's 2003 Sexual Offences Act, uses the word "trafficking" to describe the movement of all sex workers, including willing professionals who are simply travelling in search of a better income.

Hence "trafficking" conjours up images of unwilling people being forced into prostitution whereas, on the contrary, the vast majority are willing participants in their being "trafficked".

The fact remains that the British Police reckon that over six months of focussed intensive, efforts nationwide, there were a total of eleven woman who needed to be "rescued".




> The internal analysis of Pentameter Two, obtained by the Guardian, reveals that after six months of raids across the UK, 11 women were finally "made safe".




If even _one_ person is forced into prostitution, it's one too many, but the actual numbers would appear to be miniscule in relation to the size of the trade overall.


Woof


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> I don't see why people can't advocate for sex workers' rights without necessarily wanting to become a customer of the sex industry.


Of course. That's not the issue here though. The issue is certain people denying the reality of sex work in favour of some rose tinted happy hooker myth. That makes me rather suspicious of motives especially when these people are keen to smear their opponents as moral puritans. As i have said repeatedly one can be in favour of rights for sex workers and also think critically about the realities of sex work.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> A quick cursory glance at Google Scholar shows approx 116,000 studies on 'long term studies into psychological effects of prostitution on prostitutes'
> 
> Surprisingly cant find much academic research on 'long term studies into psychological effects of cleaning on cleaners'
> 
> Funny that.




Funny?

Shocking more like.

It neatly presents the extent to which a massive "industry" has been built up around the issue of prostitution - so many salaries to make, while nobody gives a fuck about cleaners.






Woof


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

yes i have read it - have you read the link I posted, or only the Nick Davies article?  because the former shows that there _is_ a problem with trafficking - as defined by the Palermo protocol.  Not as big a problem as the government stated, nothing like as big as 25000, but still significant.  Somewhere between 200 and 4000 women. 

But you dont think that really matters, it appears.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2009)

It's estimated that between 4 and 18 million people are trafficked worldwide every year depending on definitions. That's not as big a problem as it could be given the number of people in the world but it's still a very big deal.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Of course. That's not the issue here though. The issue is certain people denying the reality of sex work in favour of some rose tinted happy hooker myth. That makes me rather suspicious of motives especially when these people are keen to smear their opponents as moral puritans. As i have said repeatedly one can be in favour of rights for sex workers and also think critically about the realities of sex work.



I hadn't read anything about rose tinted happy hookers, just the interrogation of whether people went to prostitutes.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Maybe that's because the overwhelming majority of individuals don't choose prostitution as a career choice. Perhaps its you struggling with that fact?



You think most peeps grow up hoping in their dreams to be toilet cleaners?


Woof


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2009)

It's also worth pointing out that trafficking doesn't just include sex work. In the case of child trafficking the majority of it is for domestic servitude which may or may not include sexual "services". 

Also worth pointing out how stunningly naive many people are here about the West even people who work along side foreigners day to day and live in an urban centre. People wonder how trafficking occurs with all the fantastic public awareness aobut it these days, spend a month or two here and you'll know why. 

Dubai is fucking notorious for it btw.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Funny?
> 
> Shocking more like.
> 
> It neatly presents the extent to which a massive "industry" has been built up around the issue of prostitution



Maybe because there are so many issues to consider with prostitution....and pretty much none about cleaners-well certainly none that or on the same level. 

The overwhelming majority of cleaners probably don't suffer from long term pyschological conditions such as PTSD or face the possibility of being raped and killed on a day to day basis.

But hey as soon as they do I'm pretty sure academia will be out in force milking the cash cow eh


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> You think most peeps grow up hoping in their dreams to be toilet cleaners?
> 
> 
> Woof



Some people have no choice-just like the majority of prostitutes.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> funny how the comments re murders and assaults on sex workers have been conveniently ignored by those who like getting their kicks from seeing women abused



Legalise and regulate small brothels and it would make things much safer.

New Zealand has seen positive results through this approach.


Woof


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> I hadn't read anything about rose tinted happy hookers, just the interrogation of whether people went to prostitutes.


i suggest you read the thread again then.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Legalise and regulate small brothels and it would make things much safer.
> 
> New Zealand has seen positive results through this approach.
> 
> ...



I absolutely agree, if you look back on threads about sex work you'd see I advocate just such a position. 

But that doesn't mean that we should ignore the existence of trafficking. Pretending it doesnt exist at all, or at any kind of significant level, plays right into the hands of those like Smith who want to criminalise all sex work.


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 22, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Christ. I'm currently working on a document for an anti-trafficking organisation. Perhaps the people who are coninced that trafficking was a myth would like to tell me why it's estimated to be one of the biggest social problems in the country i currently live and why they've had to set up a 24 hour helpline about it. It's actually cost the country millions in terms of lost revenue and something like 10% of moldovans say they know someone who's been trafficked. OK, that's not very high considering about 1 in 4 of the entire population are working abroad at any one time. But it's enough to disporve this bollocks.
> 
> Some of the arguments are just ridiculous. I'm totally aware that the police in some countries, including moldova, have used the pretext of anti-trafficking to bring in repressive measures against women. But the same is the case with terrorism ffs! Al-Qaeda might not actually exist but terrorism fucking does, even if it barely happens. The reaction is totally disproportional but nobody actually goes as far as saying that terrorism is a myth and that everyone who was there on 9/11 just imagined the whole thing


 urbans great isn't it! [not] 
everyone has totally ignored this while they rant and strut


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> It is fair enough to decry this as Puritanism.  It's the kind of hardline puritanism that would make untethered and the Taliban equally happy.



Hey - I've got no problem you calling me a puritan (although I'm not). 

Just as long as I can call you a rapist.

Happie Chappie


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> I absolutely agree, if you look back on threads about sex work you'd see I advocate just such a position.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that we should ignore the existence of trafficking. Pretending it doesnt exist at all, or at any kind of significant level, plays right into the hands of those like Smith who want to criminalise all sex work.


Indeed. It also means we shouldn't ignore the reality of drug abuse and sexual abuse that leads many people into sex work.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> urbans great isn't it! [not]
> everyone has totally ignored this while they rant and strut



Correction...._som_e people have chosen to ignore it.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> Hey - I've got no problem you calling me a puritan (although I'm not).
> 
> Just as long as I can call you a rapist.
> 
> Happie Chappie



Harsh.

But fair.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 22, 2009)

This is one of the most horrible threads on here in a long time. Agree with Blagsta, Frogwoman and others for what its worth.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2009)

gun crime doesn't exist because "liberals" want to ban guns. 
terrorism doesn't exist because the media are always exaggerating threats caused by immigration and muslims, leading to people getting attacked. 
climate change doesn't exist because the government are always trying to tax people in the name of global warming. 
the holocaust/racism doesn't exist because the government brings in repressive measures against people like the bnp in the name of "anti-racism"

Anyone saying any of this would be rightly called an idiot, take a look at yourselves ffs.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> gun crime doesn't exist because "liberals" want to ban guns.
> terrorism doesn't exist because the media are always exaggerating threats caused by immigration and muslims, leading to people getting attacked.
> climate change doesn't exist because the government are always trying to tax people in the name of global warming.
> the holocaust/racism doesn't exist because the government brings in repressive measures against people like the bnp in the name of "anti-racism"
> ...



Its fits with their agenda as well as their own behaviour in some cases IMO.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2009)

columbine didn't happen, it was a myth made up by the anti-gun lobby. Menawhile thousands of innocent people are going to prison for the mere act of owning a weapon while this all powerful anti-gun lobby controls our thoughts and makes our media believe in this myth of gun crime ...


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> I have to say on all my years of using Urban this thread qualifies for the highest density of idiots who clearly are struggling to read whats been written.


That, and cowardly jerks like you who hide behind internet anonymity to lie about folks.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> Harsh.
> 
> But fair.


Nah.

You're the guy who gets hot thinking about punishing prostitutes.

Maybe you should get a job as a long distance lorry driver ~ you'll get more opportunity to act out that way.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Nah.
> 
> You're the guy who gets hot thinking about punishing prostitutes.
> 
> Maybe you should get a job as a long distance lorry driver ~ you'll get more opportunity to act out that way.


you're quite sick


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> That, and cowardly jerks like you who hide behind internet anonymity to lie about folks.



You can keep harping the same line you know, and even drop me PMs accusing me of this, but it doesn't change the fact I really don't have a clue what the fuck your talking about.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> It is far from funny when Jacqui Smith's supporters stoop to attempting to slur opponents of her repressive legislation as punters and abusers.
> 
> It is fair enough to decry this as Puritanism.  It's the kind of hardline puritanism that would make untethered and the Taliban equally happy.





happie chappie said:


> Hey - I've got no problem you calling me a puritan (although I'm not).
> 
> Just as long as I can call you a rapist.
> 
> Happie Chappie


This is about as vile and scummy as it gets


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> you're quite sick


So you say; but maybe you should get a refund from you're shrink.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2009)

correct me if i'm wrong but afaik belboid hasn't advocated punishing prostitutes at all. Jesus


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Nah.
> 
> You're the guy who gets hot thinking about punishing prostitutes.
> 
> Maybe you should get a job as a long distance lorry driver ~ you'll get more opportunity to act out that way.



that says far more about you than me, as anyone who has read the thread will easilly be able to tell.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> correct me if i'm wrong but afaik belboid hasn't advocated punishing prostitutes at all. Jesus



Nobody has......except in Jonti's head. I suspect its possibly a fantasy of his maybe....


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> correct me if i'm wrong but afaik belboid hasn't advocated punishing prostitutes at all. Jesus



anyone who disagrees with jonti & co supports killing all prostitutes, their clients, and anyone who has ever looked at them.  Apparently.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> So you say; but maybe you should get a refund from you're shrink.


This is the standard of your debate? Jesus...


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> anyone who disagrees with jonti & co supports killing all prostitutes, their clients, and anyone who has ever looked at them.  Apparently.



Exactly. It doesn't lend itself to sensible debate-which is why this thread has turned into a car crash.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Nobody has......except in Jonti's head. I suspect its possibly a fantasy of his maybe....



And one he can act out the next time he visits one of his oh-so-happy hookers. Why not give them a slap eh? It's "just a job" for them after all.

Happie Chappie


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> And one he can act out the next time he visits one of his oh-so-happy hookers. Why not give them a slap eh? It's "just a job" for them after all.
> 
> Happie Chappie



Its just a job....just like a cleaners job.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

People here are who throwing out words like sick, abuser, rapist ~ for supporting the decriminalisation of prostitution ~ have lost their moral compass.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> And one he can act out the next time he visits one of his oh-so-happy hookers. Why not give them a slap eh? It's "just a job" for them after all.
> 
> Happie Chappie



they'll probably enjoy it.  Some people do, so its not a problem.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> People here are who throwing out words like sick, abuser, rapist ~ for supporting the decriminalisation of prostitution ~ have lost their moral compass.



that is NOT why people have been insulting you.  It's because of your bullshit, dishonesty, and refusal to deal with the actual issues.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Here's something I posted earlier.


> TWO adults enter a room, agree a price, and have sex. Has either committed a crime? Common sense suggests not: sex is not illegal in itself, and the fact that money has changed hands does not turn a private act into a social menace. If both parties consent, it is hard to see how either is a victim. But prostitution has rarely been treated as just another transaction, or even as a run-of-the-mill crime: the oldest profession is also the oldest pretext for outraged moralising and unrealistic lawmaking devised by man.
> 
> In recent years, governments have tended to bother with prostitution only when it threatened public order. Most countries (including Britain and America) have well-worn laws against touting on street corners, against the more brazen type of brothel and against pimping. This has never been ideal, partly because sellers of sex feel the force of law more strongly than do buyers, and partly because anti-soliciting statutes create perverse incentives. On some occasions, magistrates who have fined streetwalkers have been asked to wait a few days so that the necessary money can be earned.
> 
> ...


Sick, or sensible?


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> i suggest you read the thread again then.



Is this the point where I suggest you do same? Or shall we just agree that people with varying opinions can read posts according to those opinions?


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> And just as I support workers rights, I work to oppose exploitation. So I have no problem with supporting legislation against the gangmasters etc, you remember, the people who led to 23 chinese cockle pickers dying at Morecambe Bay. They are the 'normal' work equivalent to traffickers, and both need opposing.



My understanding was that the cockle pickers were willing participants who _paid_ for the chance to go to the UK and pick cockles. They certainly weren't "trafficked" in any sense that I take the word to mean.

The fact that they were illegal immigrants working in the unregulated economy is an entirely different issue.


Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> People here are who throwing out words like sick, abuser, rapist ~ for supporting the decriminalisation of prostitution ~ have lost their moral compass.



....I hardly think you're in a position to discuss moral compasses my friend.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Its just a job....just like a cleaners job.



Absolutely - although I don't recall fucking my cleaner up the arse, without a condom, against her will, or orally raping my plumber.

Happie Chappie


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

The actual issue is a concerted attempt to lie about the extent of sex slavery in Britain, and on the back of that, to bring in laws to further criminalise prostitution.

And the brutal effect this will have on the lives of prostitutes.

The abusers in this are those distracting attention from the impending repression.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> The actual issue is a concerted attempt to lie about the extent of sex slavery in Britain, and on the back of that, to bring in laws to further criminalise prostitution.
> 
> And the brutal effect this will have on the lives of prostitutes.
> 
> The abusers in this are those distracting attention from the impending repression.


so why are you deliberately muddling up other issues, and then claiming that people oppose all sex work, when we clearly dont?  You are not being very honest here.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Maybe because there are so many issues to consider with prostitution....and pretty much none about cleaners-well certainly none that or on the same level.


Ha ha. "Issues". Precisely. What we choose to turn into an “issue” more like. I’m friendly with loads of cleaners and I’d say at least half of them have some kind of serious problem like depression, OCD, difficulty reading and writing, addiction problems, relationship difficulties, anxiety problems, conduct problems etc. The other half are filling time before moving on or taking the least demanding job they can find that doesn’t interfere with their drug hobby. One I know is on the game for what it’s worth. There are as many “issues”, they’re just too dull and inane and normal to titillate academics. I’d accept that there is a higher concentration of unusual personalities involved in the game, with unique values that come into conflict with society at large, and that makes it very interesting from that perspective. With that comes a lot of suffering and precocity, sex and violence and we all fucking love a little bit of that. Eyes light up. Salivating.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Nah.
> 
> You're the guy who gets hot thinking about punishing prostitutes.
> 
> *Maybe you should get a job as a long distance lorry driver ~ you'll get more opportunity to act out that way.*



Eh?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> People here are who throwing out words like sick, abuser, rapist ~ for supporting the decriminalisation of prostitution ~ have lost their moral compass.


This is very dishonest jonti


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> Traffickers are not sex workers, they are traffickers.



Surely not _real_ "traffickers if those who were "trafficked" were entirely willing participants?


Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ....I hardly think you're in a position to discuss moral compasses my friend.


You're not my friend, not judging from the way you've lied on this thread.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Here's something I posted earlier.
> 
> Sick, or sensible?


Abstracted ahistorical nonsense


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Surely not _real_ "traffickers if those who were "trafficked" were entirely willing participants?
> 
> 
> Woof



are you being deliberately thick? Or do you honestly not believe that anyone was trafficked unwillingly?  Because that is what the rest of us are talking about.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2009)

The definition of trafficking *does* include people who initially agreed to work abroad, even as prostitutes, and then discovered they were being held against their will, with their documents taken away, etc. Don't be disingenuous ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Ha ha. "Issues". Precisely. What we choose to turn into an “issue” more like. I’m friendly with loads of cleaners and I’d say at least half of them have some kind of serious problem like depression, OCD, difficulty reading and writing, addiction problems, relationship difficulties, anxiety problems, conduct problems etc. The other half are filling time before moving on or taking the least demanding job they can find that doesn’t interfere with their drug hobby. One I know is on the game for what it’s worth. There are as many “issues”, they’re just too dull and inane and normal to titillate academics. I’d accept that there is a higher concentration of unusual personalities involved in the game, with unique values that come into conflict with society at large, and that makes it very interesting from that perspective. With that comes a lot of suffering and precocity, sex and violence and we all fucking love a little bit of that. Eyes light up. Salivating.




projected nihilism strike again


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> yes i have read it - have you read the link I posted, or only the Nick Davies article?  because the former shows that there _is_ a problem with trafficking - as defined by the Palermo protocol.  Not as big a problem as the government stated, nothing like as big as 25000, but still significant.  Somewhere between 200 and 4000 women.
> 
> But you dont think that really matters, it appears.




According to the article, I think the number you are looking for is 71, and that's _including_ those who were willingly trafficked.


Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> so why are you deliberately muddling up other issues, and then claiming that people oppose all sex work, when we clearly dont?  You are not being very honest here.


The actual issue is a concerted attempt to lie about the extent of sex slavery in Britain, and on the back of that, to bring in laws to further criminalise prostitution.

And the brutal effect this will have on the lives of prostitutes.

You've called me an abuser -- that's just silly. The abusers in this are those distracting attention from the impending repression.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Glad to see you Jessie!


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:
			
		

> claiming that people oppose all sex work, when we clearly dont?


What sex work do you promote? I didn't even think you believed people should be self employed. Jesus, I imagined you'd want as much nationalised as possible. I know it's not fair of me. I just did.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> According to the article, I think the number you are looking for is 71, and that's _including_ those who were willingly trafficked.
> 
> 
> Woof



because of course, there is no discrepancy between the number of sex crimes reported to the police and those which actually occur

none whatsoever.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> It's estimated that between 4 and 18 million people are trafficked worldwide every year depending on definitions. That's not as big a problem as it could be given the number of people in the world but it's still a very big deal.



Maybe, although I'm always suspicious of such "estimates" due to the problems discussed here, in that so many people have an agenda that leads them to produce massive inflated "estimates".

But whatever the number, the vast, _vast_ majority of them have been _willingly_ "trafficked" - indeed, many pay very handsomely to be "trafficked".


Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> The definition of trafficking *does* include people who initially agreed to work abroad, even as prostitutes, and then discovered they were being held against their will, with their documents taken away, etc. Don't be disingenuous ...


fw, the statutory definition of _trafficking_ in the uk now could criminalise a minicab driver who drives a woman to her brothel.  Or a friend who does the same thing.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> Is this the point where I suggest you do same? Or shall we just agree that people with varying opinions can read posts according to those opinions?


My issue is with the view that prostitution is a free choice for the majority of people. This is simply not true. Now i have stated what informs this opinion yet jonti refuses to. Instead he consistently misrepresents the position of anyone who thinks critically about the reality of the work. I find this highly suspect and start to wonder what his motives are. Anyone who so consistently ignores the reality of sex work instead choosing to see it as purely free choice, the same as working on a checkout...well they're in denial about reality for some reason...


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> gw, the statutory definition of _trafficking_ in the uk now could criminalise a minicab driver who drives a woman to her brothel.  Or a friend who does the same thing.



no it couldn't.  not unless the driver made her get in the car and forced her into the brothel.  don't talk shite.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

> I don't recall fucking my cleaner up the arse, without a condom, against her will, or orally raping my plumber.


You would though, if she offered, like. How could you be sure it was really consensual?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> fw, the statutory definition of _trafficking_ in the uk now could criminalise a minicab driver who drives a woman to her brothel.  Or a friend who does the same thing.



I wasn't discussing trafficking in the UK and I tihnk we are all agreed that the laws are a pile of crap. I am discussing the international definition of it.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Some people have no choice-just like the majority of prostitutes.



_Most_ people have no choice but to work at something rather sub-optimal to their desires when they'd prefer, if they had the choice, to do something else, or nothing at all.


Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

You know, the great thing about living in the middle of brixton is that it enables me to ignore the reality of sex work.  None of that here, of course


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

> Anyone who so consistently ignores the reality of sex work instead choosing to see it as purely free choice, the same as working on a checkout


I can assure you working on a checkout is not a free choice. It's not the free choice that's a problem for you is it. It's the fucking. It's OK to scan cornflakes against your will, but not OK to suck dick. Simple as. Arbitrary. But OK. You're under no obligation to defend or justify your belief.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> According to the article, I think the number you are looking for is 71, and that's _including_ those who were willingly trafficked.
> 
> 
> Woof



that was indeed the lowest number mentioned, well done for provng you can read.

Do you really think that there is NO under-reporting?  That that number is accurate?  If not, then you accept the number is higher.

Its also disappointing that you dont recognise the existence and levels of 'debt bondage' - which many women who were 'willingly' trafficked face, and which traps them - against their will - in an appaling and unsafe environment.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> I absolutely agree, if you look back on threads about sex work you'd see I advocate just such a position.



I understand that.





> But that doesn't mean that we should ignore the existence of trafficking. Pretending it doesnt exist at all, or at any kind of significant level, plays right into the hands of those like Smith who want to criminalise all sex work.



As I've written, _one_ is one too many.

The problem is that the moral panic surrounding prostitution has facilitated those with an agenda to vastly, _vastly_ inflate the figures of those actually forced into prostitution. The evidence suggests that the problem, particularly in light of the size of the industry overall, is miniscule.

When it happens, it's appalling, but it's much, much rarer than has been postulated.


Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I wasn't discussing trafficking in the UK and I tihnk we are all agreed that the laws are a pile of crap. I am discussing the international definition of it.


I support the free movement of labour, so _trafficking_ as such does not strike me as necessarily a social evil. As JD says, people pay to be _trafficked_ ~ in previous times these folks would have been lauded for getting on their bikes to seek a better future.

There's a strange sleight of hand here where _trafficking_ and* trading slaves* is just one of the manifold dishonesties the new puritans.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> The actual issue is a concerted attempt to lie about the extent of sex slavery in Britain, and on the back of that, to bring in laws to further criminalise prostitution.
> 
> And the brutal effect this will have on the lives of prostitutes.
> 
> You've called me an abuser -- that's just silly. The abusers in this are those distracting attention from the impending repression.



and, as stated before, by you lying about the non-existence (or virtual non-existence) of trafficknig etc, YOU are helping those laws come into place.  You help (in a pathetically small way) to put a stop to sane discusson about the issues, and about how women who choose (however freely) to perform sex work can be made most safe.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Ha ha. "Issues". Precisely. What we choose to turn into an “issue” more like. I’m friendly with loads of cleaners and I’d say at least half of them have some kind of serious problem like depression, OCD, difficulty reading and writing, addiction problems, relationship difficulties, anxiety problems, conduct problems etc. The other half are filling time before moving on or taking the least demanding job they can find that doesn’t interfere with their drug hobby. One I know is on the game for what it’s worth. There are as many “issues”, they’re just too dull and inane and normal to titillate academics. I’d accept that there is a higher concentration of unusual personalities involved in the game, with unique values that come into conflict with society at large, and that makes it very interesting from that perspective. With that comes a lot of suffering and precocity, sex and violence and we all fucking love a little bit of that. Eyes light up. Salivating.




Do you know what-I think you're a lying troll....and a tedious one at that.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> ts also disappointing that you dont recognise the existence and levels of 'debt bondage' - which many women who were 'willingly' trafficked face, and which traps them - against their will - in an appaling and unsafe environment.


Oh don't be such a whiny indignant bleeding heart. Fuck me, has your girlfriend got a moustache and dungarees or something? Fruit pickers are in debt bondage. Why don't you fucking go and spill your salvation on them for a change. Actually you probably do on your daily rounds. Reading down the shopping list of victims. It'll be back to veal crates next.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> You're not my friend, not judging from the way you've lied on this thread.



....Im not the one denying my sexual proclivities in public whilst defending them to the hilt in that very same arena.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Do you know what-I think you're a lying troll....and a tedious one at that.


Lying is wrong. mmmm'K?


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> The problem is that the moral panic surrounding prostitution has facilitated those with an agenda to vastly, _vastly_ inflate the figures of those actually forced into prostitution. The evidence suggests that the problem, particularly in light of the size of the industry overall, is miniscule.



I partly agree, except we do not honestly know whether the figures are greatly exagerrated, a bit exageratted, or vastly exageratted. I suspect that it is quite significant, with maybe a thousand/fifteen hundred women in the UK involved, tho I really dont have any way of knowing it.

Were there fully legal brothels a la New Zealand it would be much harder to traffic women. That is the argument I think should be put forward in these cases, not a 'ban it all' argument, nor a 'there isn't really a problem' argument. But one must recognise that there is a real issue if the issue is going to be dealt with.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I support the free movement of labour, so _trafficking_ as such does not strike me as necessarily a social evil. As JD says, people pay to be _trafficked_ ~ in previous times these folks would have been lauded for getting on their bikes to seek a better future.
> 
> There's a strange sleight of hand here where _trafficking_ and* trading slaves* is just one of the manifold dishonesties the new puritans.



Trafficking is NOT te free movement of labour you daft sod.  Quite the reverse.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ....Im not the one denying my sexual proclivities in public whilst defending them to the hilt in that very same arena.


I think you need to explain what you mean here.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Oh don't be such a whiny indignant bleeding heart. Fuck me, has your girlfriend got a moustache and dungarees or something? Fruit pickers are in debt bondage. Why don't you fucking go and spill your salvation on them for a change. Actually you probably do on your daily rounds. Reading down the shopping list of victims. It'll be back to veal crates next.



thanks for proving your total ignorance beyond a shadow of a doubt.

_Some_ fruit pickers are in debt bondage - the chinese cockle pickers for example.  The large majority are not.  they may be in debt, but that is a very different thing.

If you don't uderstand the terms being used, you really should keep out of the conversation, unless you enjoy making yourself look fucking stupid.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I think you need to explain what you mean here.



..go figure it out yourself.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Lying is wrong. mmmm'K?



Yep a troll.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> My issue is with the view that prostitution is a free choice for the majority of people. This is simply not true. Now i have stated what informs this opinion yet jonti refuses to. Instead he consistently misrepresents the position of anyone who thinks critically about the reality of the work. I find this highly suspect and start to wonder what his motives are. Anyone who so consistently ignores the reality of sex work instead choosing to see it as purely free choice, the same as working on a checkout...well they're in denial about reality for some reason...



I don't believe that working in a minimum wage job is necessarily free choice either. You do what you have to do, to make ends meet. Then it becomes a choice of what's worse - and that will vary according to people's pragmatism and personal morals.

That's not to say that I don't think trafficking happens, because it clearly does. Especially in the international context.

The sex industry is huge, and it's not just about prostitution. But a lot of it is about exploitation. And there are ranges of exploitation within that too. I'm not sure that legislation focusing on the worse end of it & with the added impact on the not-worse end of it, is helpful.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> Trafficking is NOT te free movement of labour you daft sod.  Quite the reverse.


I know some people pay fares to be brought secretly into the eec; what I meant is that I think they should be free to come here openly.

Or are you suggesting all trafficked people are slaves ~ as I've mentioned before, in the uk you could be accused of trafficking if you gave a friend a lift to her brothel.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> are you being deliberately thick? Or do you honestly not believe that anyone was trafficked unwillingly?  Because that is what the rest of us are talking about.



As has been discovered, the numbers in this category are a very tiny percentage.


Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ..go figure it out yourself.


You claim to know something about my sexual proclivities.

But I think you are a liar


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> The definition of trafficking *does* include people who initially agreed to work abroad, even as prostitutes, and then discovered they were being held against their will, with their documents taken away, etc. Don't be disingenuous ...



Not the case.


Under UK law, this includes _all_ willing participants. This inflates the numbers astronomically.


Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> You claim to know something about my sexual proclivities.
> 
> But I think you are a liar



...hey ho I'm not the one denying that I'm a punter. You on the other hand have done the very best to evade answering the question.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> thanks for proving your total ignorance beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> _Some_ fruit pickers are in debt bondage - the chinese cockle pickers for example.  The large majority are not.  they may be in debt, but that is a very different thing.
> 
> If you don't uderstand the terms being used, you really should keep out of the conversation, unless you enjoy making yourself look fucking stupid.


Oh please. Most of the fucking workforce are in debt bondage. I think you underestimate the number fruitpickers who're in debt to their employers. Anyway...

a) Does your girlfriend have a moustache?
b) Are you essentially for the Harman / Smith position on sex work?

Tell us, do.

On and...

c) If you've got me on ignore, how come you're reading my posts?


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> because of course, there is no discrepancy between the number of sex crimes reported to the police and those which actually occur
> 
> none whatsoever.



This was the result of an intensive, national, six month police operation raiding brothels across the country.

One is too many, but gross and deliberate exageration undermines the position of those driven by an agenda. It's good that they've been caught out.


Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...hey ho I'm not the one denying that I'm a punter.


Me neither.

But I'm the one that knows you as a liar


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Oh please. Most of the fucking workforce are in debt bondage. I think you underestimate the number fruitpickers who're in debt to their employers. Anyway...
> 
> a) Does your girlfriend have a moustache?
> b) Are you essentially for the Harman / Smith position on sex work?
> ...


you really are fucking thick aren't you?  

You weren't actually on ignore, i was just skipping over the vast majority of your posts as they are shite. Not even funnily idiotic, just plain stupid and incredibly ignorant.

Do you keep taking me on and off ignore, btw?  I only ask cos you quote some of my posts, but never seem to have actually read or understood them.  perhaps thats because you are just a bored troll.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> My issue is with the view that prostitution is a free choice for the majority of people. This is simply not true.







> ...the argument that all prostitutes are victims. Its proponents cite studies that show high rates of sexual abuse and drug taking among employees. To which there are two answers. First, those studies are biased: they tend to be carried out by staff at drop-in centres and by the police, who tend to see the most troubled streetwalkers. *Taking their clients as representative of all prostitutes is like assessing the state of marriage by sampling shelters for battered women.* Second, the association between prostitution and drug addiction does not mean that one causes the other: drug addicts, like others, may go into prostitution just because it's a good way of making a decent living if you can't think too clearly.




Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> no it couldn't.  not unless the driver made her get in the car and forced her into the brothel.  don't talk shite.



You're wrong.


Under UK law, that would be trafficking _within_ the UK as opposed to trafficking _into_ the UK.


Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

There is logic to the puritans' slur.

Punters (of course) have better knowledge of the sex slave problem than most ~ punters want professional quality, and wish to avoid slaves, and addicts too, for that matter.

Best to demonise punters too, then.  And call anyone who says "hang on, there's fuck all to Jackboot Jacqui's imagined slavery scanarios, she's a fruitcake" a punter as well, just for good measure.

These puritans are not our friends.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> I don't believe that working in a minimum wage job is necessarily free choice either. You do what you have to do, to make ends meet. Then it becomes a choice of what's worse - and that will vary according to people's pragmatism and personal morals.
> 
> That's not to say that I don't think trafficking happens, because it clearly does. Especially in the international context.
> 
> The sex industry is huge, and it's not just about prostitution. But a lot of it is about exploitation. And there are ranges of exploitation within that too. I'm not sure that legislation focusing on the worse end of it & with the added impact on the not-worse end of it, is helpful.


Working in a minimum wage job is not the same as working as a prostitute. People don't tend to do minimum wage jobs because abusive relationships have become normalised for them.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> that was indeed the lowest number mentioned, well done for provng you can read.
> 
> Do you really think that there is NO under-reporting?  That that number is accurate?  If not, then you accept the number is higher.



I'm sure there are more - but the percentages are miniscule.





> Its also disappointing that you dont recognise the existence and levels of 'debt bondage' - which many women who were 'willingly' trafficked face, and which traps them - against their will - in an appaling and unsafe environment.



Most "trafficked" people are aware of the deal they are entering into. Most accept it and pay off their debt.


If one is abused, that's too many.


Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> There is logic to the puritans' slur.
> 
> Punters (of course) have better knowledge of the sex slave problem than most ~ punters want professional quality, and wish to avoid slaves, and addicts too, for that matter.
> 
> ...



....yes you've slept with prostitutes alright.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> There is logic to the puritans' slur.
> 
> Punters (of course) have better knowledge of the sex slave problem than most ~ punters want professional quality, and wish to avoid slaves, and addicts too, for that matter.
> 
> ...


You're fucking deluded. Punters often want to use addicts and homeless people. You're in some massive denial.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Working in a minimum wage job is not the same as working as a prostitute. People don't tend to do minimum wage jobs because abusive relationships have become normalised for them.



And not all prostitutes (or wider sex industry workers) work in the sex industry because abusive relationships have become normalised for them.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ....yes you've slept with prostitutes alright.


What a nasty little man you are 

I don't discuss my private life, so you feel justified to invent stuff to suit your own prejudices.  Found guilty of whatever you imagine, just for saying nothing.

This must be the attitude of the puritan filth at its finest


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> As has been discovered, the numbers in this category are a very tiny percentage.



considering the number of women involved in sex work, I dont think 2.5% is that small a figure.


Jessiedog said:


> You're wrong.
> 
> 
> Under UK law, that would be trafficking _within_ the UK as opposed to trafficking _into_ the UK.


nope, you are wrong - unless the taxi driver were in the pay and control of the pimp.  otherwise he'd just be a driver.  There are problems with that part of the act, i agree, but you dont do yourself any favours by such exageration.



Jessiedog said:


> Most "trafficked" people are aware of the deal they are entering into. Most accept it and pay off their debt.



_really??_  Most such peope are aware that they will be kept in bondage* for years are they?  That they will have no free movement until they have paid off their traffickers?  I'd be very interested to see any evidence for that.



*not the good kind


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:
			
		

> Do you keep taking me on and off ignore, btw?


Nah mate. Your posts "need" reading. Are you ashamed of your girlfriend's moustache? I think you’d like to have a little go on Harman and Smith with their properly bleached upper lips. Hotties. Two-at-a time. Yeah! That’s why you get a little semi whenever they talk about the old sex innit? Yup. Makes sense now.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You're fucking deluded. Punters often want to use addicts and homeless people. You're in some massive denial.


Not denial, no; that's a heck of a leap to make.

My conclusions on that come from reading punter.net (a dismal chore) which is very much mainstream.  I accept your professional experience with vulnerable people has shown you a different picture.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> What a nasty little man you are
> 
> I don't discuss my private life,



You don't have to. Your responses thus far speaks volumes.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Nah mate. Your posts "need" reading. Are you ashamed of your girlfriend's moustache? I think you’d like to have a little go on Harman and Smith with their properly bleached upper lips. Hotties. Two-at-a time. Yeah! That’s why you get a little semi whenever they talk about the old sex innit? Yup. Makes sense now.



Don't feed the troll.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> And not all prostitutes (or wider sex industry workers) work in the sex industry because abusive relationships have become normalised for them.


Agreed. However i'd argue they are in the majority.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> I partly agree, except we do not honestly know whether the figures are greatly exagerrated, a bit exageratted, or vastly exageratted. I suspect that it is quite significant, with maybe a thousand/fifteen hundred women in the UK involved, tho I really dont have any way of knowing it.



It's impossible to know precisely, but the evidence suggests the numbers are low. My bet would be under 100. There are millions of people willing to be "trafficked" into prostitution - the rewards are immense compared to other options. With such willing a supply side, the hassle involved in effectively kidnapping people, holding them prisoner and hoping nothing goes wrong is largely redundant - tho' it does happen, I'm sure.




> Were there fully legal brothels a la New Zealand it would be much harder to traffic women. That is the argument I think should be put forward in these cases, not a 'ban it all' argument, nor a 'there isn't really a problem' argument. But one must recognise that there is a real issue if the issue is going to be dealt with.



Agreed, but the issue needs to be kept in perspective and it hasn't been, it's been blown way, _way_ out of perspective by those with an agenda. Now we know this, some of the _massive_ resources diverted into this area can be redirected towards other pressing issues.


Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Only to you, I fear.

I find your interest ... creepy.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Don't feed the troll.


You are the troll here.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> I... the hassle involved in effectively kidnapping people, holding them prisoner and hoping nothing goes wrong is largely redundant...


'kidnapping' doesnt happen. Lying to people and saying they are going to work in a different role, or that they will be incredibly well paid for a little while before getting leave to remain are far more common.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Spinning the war on the UK's sex trade is a good read, for those who'd fight the puritan menace.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Agreed. However i'd argue they are in the majority.


Ok. So if the majority of people in a job are there because abusive relationships have become normalised for them then...

I mean, you could as easily argue the majority of people trapped in any low status occupation are there because they’ve been in dysfunctional relationship of one kind or another. Even if only say they’re upbringing didn’t instil a “normal” level of ambition or self esteem.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> And not all prostitutes (or wider sex industry workers) work in the sex industry because abusive relationships have become normalised for them.



Indeed. The vast majority are in it for the money.


Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Spinning the war on the UK's sex trade is a good read, for those who'd fight the puritan menace.....




...as well as those who sleep with prostitutes.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Agreed. However i'd argue they are in the majority.



They might be, I'm not sure. I don't have data to support the position one way or the other (discounting anecdotal impressions).

But if they are, supported by hard data, why?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

*So how big is the problem?*



> "As for trafficking, the only official report from the police operation Pentameter 1 shows a tiny proportion, just 0.11 per cent, of people in the sex industry have in fact been trafficked. A subsequent operation, Pentameter 2, found 167 trafficked people, which is still only 0.21 per cent."


ibid


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

> ...as well as those who sleep with prostitutes


Sleep? They can fucking pay me if they want to sleep. Fuck.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...as well as those who sleep with prostitutes.




Yes, it's a good read for anyone who would like to get a proper handle on the situation.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

> But that's how we make law nowadays. We throw in a few demons (Sex slavery! Pimps!), lie about either their frequency or their activity and hope we've fooled enough of the public so that we can get the new measures into the Statute Book before anyone notices.
> 
> Forgive me reiterating the point that I'm a classical liberal, but wouldn't you prefer not to be ruled this way too? If we just stuck with the point that consenting adults can do as they wish as long as they don't harm either the person or the rights of others to do as they wish?


ibid


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> considering the number of women involved in sex work, I dont think 2.5% is that small a figure.




I don't think that figure is valid, given what we now know about the numbers.




> nope, you are wrong - unless the taxi driver were in the pay and control of the pimp.  otherwise he'd just be a driver.  There are problems with that part of the act, i agree, but you dont do yourself any favours by such exageration.



You are wrong, the law is the law. 


Where I live, prostitutes complain because they want to hire security guards to work outside their rooms (they tend to work in legal "one woman brothels" which are usually converted out of old blocks of flats with each room having its own front door, a bedroom and a shower). They could club together and hire a guard for their "floor" in the building - this would dramatically increase their safety. Unfortunately, the guards would be "living of immoral earnings" and thus it doesn't happen (although we are considering ways to change the law to accomodate this without encouraging the worst aspects of pimping).






> _really??_  Most such peope are aware that they will be kept in bondage* for years are they?  That they will have no free movement until they have paid off their traffickers?  I'd be very interested to see any evidence for that.



Many tens of thousands of prostitutes are "trafficked" into my region each year - they know the deal, they know what percentage of each transaction will go to their "trafficker" (who also provides accomodation, fake Identity Cards, facilities for the sex, security, etc.) and they know that it's still well worth while financially. They make ten or more times what they could as a prostitute back home and much more than that compared to cleaning toilets back home.





> *not the good kind




Cheeky!




Woof


----------



## XR75 (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...as well as those who sleep with prostitutes.



You're so funny.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> 'kidnapping' doesnt happen. Lying to people and saying they are going to work in a different role, or that they will be incredibly well paid for a little while before getting leave to remain are far more common.



More common than kidnapping perhaps (although once the traffickee discovers they've been duped, presumably they'd leave unless they were stopped).

But still, this "duping" is still very, very rare - and also the _first_ thing I'd say to the cops if I'd been caught after being willingly trafficked. Indeed, it's common knowlege among willing traffickees that this is a good way to go if caught.


Woof


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> You are wrong, the law is the law.


it is, but I think you are misinterpretting it.



> Where I live, prostitutes complain because they want to hire security guards to work outside their rooms (they tend to work in legal "one woman brothels" which are usually converted out of old blocks of flats with each room having its own front door, a bedroom and a shower). They could club together and hire a guard for their "floor" in the building - this would dramatically increase their safety. Unfortunately, the guards would be "living of immoral earnings" and thus it doesn't happen (although we are considering ways to change the law to accomodate this without encouraging the worst aspects of pimping).


with respect, I know nowt of the history etc of sex work in Hong Kong, but i dont think you can simply say 'this is how it ishere, so its how it must be there' (iyswim). Legalised brothels would indeed be a positive step, imo.



> Many tens of thousands of prostitutes are "trafficked" into my region each year - they know the deal, they know what percentage of each transaction will go to their "trafficker" (who also provides accomodation, fake Identity Cards, facilities for the sex, security, etc.) and they know that it's still well worth while financially. They make ten or more times what they could as a prostitute back home and much more than that compared to cleaning toilets back home.


again, i dont know how that would compare with the UK, they are very differnt environments.  The sheer costs of smugglnig someone that far are vastly higher for one thing, leading to much longer servitude.

Anyway, I'm off out now to have an evening that doesn't involve the banging of me head against a brick wall.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> it is, but I think you are misinterpretting it.



Technically, I'm correct.





> with respect, I know nowt of the history etc of sex work in Hong Kong, but i dont think you can simply say 'this is how it ishere, so its how it must be there' (iyswim). Legalised brothels would indeed be a positive step, imo.



I was just pointing out the vagiaries of the laws surrounding prostitution. In the UK, if you knowingly drive a prostitute to a client, you are guilty of trafficking. In my region, if you sit on a stool in the lobby to stop Triads coming in or to answer calls from tenants who are having problems with a visitor, you are guilty of being a pimp.




> again, i dont know how that would compare with the UK, they are very differnt environments.  The sheer costs of smugglnig someone that far are vastly higher for one thing, leading to much longer servitude.



Given the vast numbers of willing participants, I can't see it being much different. Why force people when there are plenty who are willing?





> Anyway, I'm off out now to have an evening that doesn't involve the banging of me head against a brick wall.



Enjoy!





Woof


----------



## RaverDrew (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> 'kidnapping' doesnt happen. Lying to people and saying they are going to work in a different role, or that they will be incredibly well paid for a little while before getting leave to remain are far more common.



I know of a least two girls that this has definitely happened to.

Often when the raids on brothels occur the girls are made to hide, or leg-it out the backdoor.  The brothel owners know to do this otherwise they will be shut down.

I can't believe there are people on this thread who are in denial that trafficking happens. I've seen firsthand, it is very real unfortunately.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

As Jonti pointed out earlier.....




> "As for trafficking, the only official report from the police operation Pentameter 1 shows a tiny proportion, just 0.11 per cent, of people in the sex industry have in fact been trafficked. A subsequent operation, Pentameter 2, found 167 trafficked people, which is still only 0.21 per cent."




Those figures make sense, but remember, the 0.21% of "trafficked" prostitutes include those who were willingly trafficked.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

RaverDrew said:


> I know of a least two girls that this has definitely happened to.
> 
> Often when the raids on brothels occur the girls are made to hide, or leg-it out the backdoor.  The brothel owners know to do this otherwise they will be shut down.
> 
> I can't believe there are people on this thread who are in denial that trafficking happens. I've seen firsthand, it is very real unfortunately.




Nobody's denied that _genuine_ trafficking occurs, Drew. It's just that it has now been discovered that the numbers _forced_ into prostitution are but a tiny, tiny fraction of less than 0.21 percent (since the 0.21 percent includes those willingly trafficked).

One is too many.


Oh, and, if they are genuinely being forced and don't want to be there, when they leg it out the back door, why don't they leg it to the nearest police station.

Woof


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

because they'd be deported


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

whoops!


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Oh, and, if they are genuinely being forced and don't want to be there, when they leg it out the back door, why don't they leg it to the nearest police station



Why - because many may be here illegally. They may be ignorant of the legal system in the UK and will be unsure whether they will be locked up for prostitution. They may have been threatened that if they go the police, they will be found and they, or their families at home (or even both) will be severley punished. 

There could be a whole host of reasons why someone who'd been trafficked and working here illegally wouldn't want to go to the police.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> because they'd be deported



So, rather than being forced, they want to stay for the financial rewards.

Makes sense to me, the money's good.



Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

Ugh, it's the piece of filth that called me a rapist.

Fuck off happie chappie, you unspeakable slime ball.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> Why - because many may be here illegally. They may be ignorant of the legal system in the UK and will be unsure whether they will be locked up for prostitution. They may have been threatened that if they go the police, they will be found and they, or their families at home (or even both) will be severley punished.
> 
> There could be a whole host of reasons why someone who'd been trafficked and working here illegally wouldn't want to go to the police.




See my reply to belboid.

There are undoubtedly a few who are in genuine fear.

Now we know just how few.


Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 22, 2009)

*more about that "Trafficking" word*



> ... for some reason best known to itself, UK sex trafficking law is purely concerned with moving people into, around or out of the UK. Fraud, coercion, deceit and so forth (and the little matter of whether these people actually want to get to, from and around the UK) are all deemed totally irrelevant. What matters is whether you intend their use in any crime in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which includes a whole host of possibilities, including, for example, incest and having sex in a public loo, as well as running brothels.
> 
> ibid


What this means, gentle reader, is that when uk politicians talk about "trafficking" they really mean "commuting while a sex-worker".

I'm afraid some of these puritan politicians are nasty, deceitful people


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Ugh, it's the pice of filth that called me a rapist.
> 
> Fuck off happie chappie, you unspeakable slime ball.



Can't take it huh. Never mind, I'll live.

I'm certainly nowhere near as slimy as someone who uses prostitutes and pretends that it's "just another" job.

Let's be clear here - anyone who has sex with someone that's either non-consensual, or where one of the parties is acting under duress, is rapist.

If that applies to you - you're a rapist, and you have to live with that. 

And no amount of spinning, wriggling, clever answers, or just plain denial can change it.

Happie Chappie


----------



## dylans (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Nobody's denied that _genuine_ trafficking occurs, Drew. It's just that it has now been discovered that the numbers _forced_ into prostitution are but a tiny, tiny fraction of less than 0.21 percent (since the 0.21 percent includes those willingly trafficked).
> 
> One is too many.
> 
> ...



When I lived in Phnom Penh, western NGO's like ECPAT would raid hotels and brothels and "rescue" the girls. The rescue usually consisted of locking the  girls in "rehabilitation centres and forcing them to take sewing lessons. 

Do you know what these "rescued" girls did the first chance they got? They legged it straight back to the brothel. Why. Cus they are sex workers and they wanted to get back to work and make money. 

Of course, given the underground nature of sex work, sex workers become prey to organised crime, coercion etc but that is not what the  "trafficking" debate is actually about. It's about criminalising sex workers by defining them as "victims" to be rescued, regardless of the wishes of those in the industry. It is this which is a myth. The idea that all sex work is coerced, It is not. The idea that all sex workers are "victims in need of "rescue" they are not. They are workers, they need workers rights.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

dylans said:


> When I lived in Phnom Penh, western NGO's like ECPAT would raid hotels and brothels and "rescue" the girls. The rescue usually consisted of locking the  girls in "rehabilitation centres and forcing them to take sewing lessons.
> 
> Do you know what these "rescued" girls did the first chance they got? They legged it straight back to the brothel. Why. Cus they are sex workers and they wanted to get back to work and make money.
> 
> Of course, given the underground nature of sex work, sex workers become prey to organised crime, coercion etc but that is not what the  "trafficking" debate is actually about. It's about criminalising sex workers by defining them as "victims" to be rescued, regardless of the wishes of those in the industry. It is this which is a myth. The idea that all sex work is coerced, It is not. The idea that all sex workers are "victims in need of "rescue" they are not. They are workers, they need workers rights.



Yer.

I know, Dylan.





Woof


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Yan Yang, a 50-year-old woman [was] gaoled for 10 months at Ipswich Crown Court this week. Her 'human trafficking' offence was to arrange a taxi from the local station for two young women who had come from London to work for her.
> 
> source



lol, prat.  did you ignore the 'work for her ' part?


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> So, rather than being forced, they want to stay for the financial rewards.
> 
> Makes sense to me, the money's good.



no, they didnt want to be sent 'home' in more fear.  they still thought they might be able to get out of their bondage.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

dylans said:


> Of course, given the underground nature of sex work, sex workers become prey to organised crime, coercion etc but that is not what the  "trafficking" debate is actually about. It's about criminalising sex workers by defining them as "victims" to be rescued, regardless of the wishes of those in the industry.



actually it's more about migration, not sex work per se

And the UK is not cambodia


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> Can't take it huh. Never mind, I'll live.
> 
> I'm certainly nowhere near as slimy as someone who uses prostitutes and pretends that it's "just another" job.
> 
> ...



How do you know when prostitution is consensual or not?

Or do you assume that all prostitution is non-consensual?

If you were absolutely and completely clear without a shadow of doubt that it was consensual - would you use the services of a prostitute?

And if not, why not?


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> How do you know when prostitution is consensual or not?
> 
> Or do you assume that all prostitution is non-consensual?
> 
> ...



I've already answered this in a previous post. I do not assume that all prostitution is non-consensual as I have already stated.

I have, on rare occasions, thought about using a prostitute, again as I have already stated. But as I couldn't be 100% sure that the sex was going to be consensual, and that there was absolutely no element of coercion or duress, I decided against it.

Happie Chappie


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> I've already answered this in a previous post. I do not assume that all prostitution is non-consensual as I have already stated.
> 
> I have, on rare occasions, thought about using a prostitute, again as I have already stated. But as I couldn't be 100% sure that the sex was going to be consensual, and that there was absolutely no element of coercion or duress, I decided against it.
> 
> Happie Chappie



But if you were sure. Unequivocably sure - that it was consensual. Would you do it?


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> But if you were sure. Unequivocably sure - that it was consensual. Would you do it?



If there was absolutley no shadow of a doubt, I might. I really can't say for sure - it would depend on the circusmtances at that time. But if I decided not to, it wouldn't be because I had a moral objection to it. 

What I can say for sure, however, is that if there was absolutely no coercion or duress (whether I was involved or not) I certainly wouldn't condemn either the prostitute or the client.

Happie Chappie


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> If there was absolutley no shadow of a doubt, I might. I really can't say for sure.
> 
> What I can say for sure, however, is that if it was the case, I certainly wouldn't condemn either the prostitute or the client.
> 
> Happie Chappie



Well no harm in thinking it through. Are you in a position where you might consider it? (Single, no-sex partnership, disabled, i.e. examples only etc etc etc).


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> Well no harm in thinking it through. Are you in a position where you might consider it? (Single, no-sex partnership, disabled, i.e. examples only etc etc etc).



No, I'm in a settled relationship, so I wouldn't use one now. I have thought about it when I was single, particularly when I was in the company of other men who were using prostitutes. But I decided against it for the reasons given

happie Chappie


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Nobody's denied that _genuine_ trafficking occurs



...have you been readin the same thread


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> No, I'm in a settled relationship, so I wouldn't use one now. I have thought about it when I was single, particularly when I was in the company of other men who were using prostitutes. But I decided against it for the reasons given
> 
> happie Chappie



Hang on. The idea is asking you to work out whether you would ever use those services - assuming all consensual without a doubt.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> If you were absolutely and completely clear without a shadow of doubt that it was consensual - would you use the services of a prostitute?
> 
> And if not, why not?



No never for me....I have an objection to prostitution on so many levels I could never bring myself to indulge in something that I object to strongly.

It would be the equivelant of asking me be a fundraiser for the BNP.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> No never for me....I have an objection to prostitution on so many levels I could never bring myself to indulge in something that I object to strongly.
> 
> It would be the equivelant of asking me be a fundraiser for the BNP.



OK, it's good you're honest about that. But why - assuming it's completely consensual?


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> Hang on. The idea is asking you to work out whether you would ever use those services - assuming all consensual without a doubt.



Sorry - you've completely lost me here. I said I couldn't say for sure whether I would or not - I would depend on all the circumstances. As we speak now, I would tend towards "no" but I also can't say that I would completely rule it out.

Happie Chappie


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

happie chappie said:


> Sorry - you've completely lost me here. I said I couldn't say for sure whether I would or not - I would depend on all the circumstances. As we speak now, I would tend towards "no" but I also can't say that I would completely rule it out.
> 
> Happie Chappie



If "no" why "no"?

If it's completely consensual, just transactional. Why no?


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

and given that one could never be totally sure it was wholly consensual, then that pretty much makes it a straightforward 'no'.

For me, I'd say sopmething similar to Happie Chappie, adding that I'd simply rather have sex with someone who wants to have sex with _me_. If I just want an orgasm, I'll have a wank.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> OK, it's good you're honest about that. But why - assuming it's completely consensual?



Because I am politically and morally opposed to prostitution. Even if it was a high class prostitute who chose to go down that path I still wouldn't. The thing is I know that behind most prostitutes there's a story-drugs, organised crime, sexual abuse, pimps etc. Because I have knowledge of that I couldn't bring myself to partake in that misery. That prostitute is someones sister or daughter....

I think you have a moral duty once you are aware of something which doesnt sit well with your politics to make some real choices. For me it means not playing a part in a trade which by and large creates a lot of misery.


----------



## dylans (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Because I am politically and morally opposed to prostitution. Even if it was a high class prostitute who chose to go down that path I still wouldn't. *The thing is I know that behind most prostitutes there's a story-drugs, organised crime, sexual abuse, pimps etc.* Because I have knowledge of that I couldn't bring myself to partake in that misery. That prostitute is someones sister or daughter....
> 
> I think you have a moral duty once you are aware of something which doesnt sit well with your politics to make some real choices. For me it means not playing a part in a trade which by and large creates a lot of misery.



                                           bollocks


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

But why is commodification of sex services worse than commodification of any other labour? (Assuming consensual).


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

dylans said:


> bollocks



Genius.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> But why is commodification of sex services worse than commodification of any other labour? (Assuming consensual).



big assumption that can rarely be totally honestly made.

part of the difference is abgout alienation - a normal part of any paid labour, but with prostitution, it becomes about being alienated from your own body.  Of course that happens in other spheres too, but that hardly means its okay.

all prostitution is based on a lie ('ooh yes mister, just there, you're the best...', and whilst most personal services are to an extent, the more personal something is, the greater the incongruity of such dishonesty.  

similarly, commodofication of anything is bad, the more intrinsically personal that thing is, the worse such commodification is.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> But why is commodification of sex services worse than commodification of any other labour? (Assuming consensual).



For me it isn't - providing it's 100% consensual - and so I have no MORAL objection to sex on this basis.

But, as belboid has said, I would much rather have sex with someone who actually wants to have sex with me. 

A wank, although probably not as much fun, certainly doesn't cause any harm to anyone else and, as you as can never really be sure of a prostitute's backstory with regard to coercion and duress, it would be my preferred option if I had choose.

happie Chappie


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

All alienation/commodification stems from selling your body's output. What makes sex special (assuming again, consensual) ?


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

iots the difference between selling your body and selling your bodies _output_.  being alienated from your own body.

I wouldn't judge anyone who chose to work in the sex trade, nor simply condemn anyone who made use of such a trade, if they can rationalise it and satisfy themselves that they are freely choosing to sell their body, fair play. That is a pretty rare experience tho - in this country, obviously in Cambodia it is completely and utterly differnt.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> iots the difference between selling your body and selling your bodies _output_.  being alienated from your own body.
> 
> I wouldn't judge anyone who chose to work in the sex trade, nor simply condemn anyone who made use of such a trade, if they can rationalise it and satisfy themselves that they are freely choosing to sell their body, fair play. That is a pretty rarte experience tho - in this country, obviously in Cambodia it is completely and utterly differnt.



You've made two different points there. The first one is about a difference between selling your body and selling your body's output. Sex is a function/output - it's not your body. 

The second point is the comparative stuff abroad. Well yeah, it's not going to be the same abroad. In the same way that derf's child-maid isn't the same in Indonesia as it would be here.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

naah, the second points just a dig at dylans 

But selling sex is selling your body, your whole body, given over to the client. Sex isn't the output, it's the whole thing.


----------



## dylans (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> The thing is *I know* that behind most prostitutes there's a story-drugs, organised crime, sexual abuse, pimps etc. .



How could you possibly *know* such a thing? What appalling arrogance. The fact is the vast majority of people in the sex industry worldwide do so for one reason and one reason only, It pays the rent better than any other available options.


----------



## agricola (Oct 22, 2009)

dylans said:


> How could you possibly *know* such a thing? What appalling arrogance. The fact is the vast majority of people in the sex industry worldwide do so for one reason and one reason only, It pays the rent better than any other available options.



Yes, accuse someone of being arrogant and then do exactly the same thing yourself.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

in the UK, every single study ever taken has shown that most sex workers also use drugs heavilly - which obviously says something about the alienating effect of the work.

all of those studies have there problems, they will miss many women out, and tend to concentrate more on street workers (who - no one denies - in the uk are also largely drug users), but the overwhelming number of such studies does show that at the very very least, a very large minority of sex workers also have substance misuse problems.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> naah, the second points just a dig at dylans
> 
> But selling sex is selling your body, your whole body, given over to the client. Sex isn't the output, it's the whole thing.



OK re second point 

But the first one. Ach man, I dunno. There's a whole raft of things that make that sort of financial transaction distasteful to me, but when you strip it back, that's what you do anyway but dressed up.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

yup - prostitution is capitalism stripped bare.  it exposes all the nastiness of the system. capitalism needs abolishing, if the majority of humanity are to lead decent lives.

this is a decent article i overwhelmingly agree with


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2009)

and on that note, i really am off to demand the broken family band sell me their bodies and their talents for an hour or two, bastard that i am


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> in the UK, every single study ever taken has shown that most sex workers also use drugs heavilly - which obviously says something about the alienating effect of the work.
> 
> all of those studies have there problems, they will miss many women out, and tend to concentrate more on street workers (who - no one denies - in the uk are also largely drug users), but the overwhelming number of such studies does show that at the very very least, a very large minority of sex workers also have substance misuse problems.



Anyone that's on the breadline will have substance misuse, self medication problems. Not just sex workers.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...have you been readin the same thread



Yes.

The debate is only regarding the prevelance.

It's miniscule, less than 0.21%.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> in the UK, every single study ever taken has shown that most sex workers also use drugs heavilly - which obviously says something about the alienating effect of the work.




Nonsense.

Those studies are conducted among prostitutes recruited from drug clinics.

The vast majority of prostitutes work quiety in their own homes, or in discreet brothels and are never captured by these surveys.






> all of those studies have there problems, they will miss many women out, and tend to concentrate more on street workers (who - no one denies - in the uk are also largely drug users), but the overwhelming number of such studies does show that at the very very least, a very large minority of sex workers also have substance misuse problems.



Nonsense.

The very vast majority of sex workers go quietly about their business and never get involved in surveys.


Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

dylans said:


> How could you possibly *know* such a thing? What appalling arrogance.



....its arrogant eh.....




> The fact is the vast majority of people in the sex industry worldwide do so for one reason and one reason only, It pays the rent better than any other available options.



.....clearly your too thick to see the irony in your post.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Yes.
> 
> The debate is only regarding the prevelance.
> 
> ...



....want to read what my post was in response to...then try again?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

agricola said:


> Yes, accuse someone of being arrogant and then do exactly the same thing yourself.



Dylans too thick to spot irony.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> capitalism needs abolishing


Ho ho. You're doing it on purpose now. Nastiness "needs" to be opposed.


belboid said:


> If I just want an orgasm, I'll have a wank.


Do you not get more satisfaction though from the great gush that can only be produced when someone else does it for you? Especially over their face. Fantastic. Kneeling in heels. Christ. That's a thrill you just can't get for free. In fact, paying for it is all part of the excitement. Don't you think? Yes. Yes you do.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> They might be, I'm not sure. I don't have data to support the position one way or the other (discounting anecdotal impressions).
> 
> But if they are, supported by hard data, why?



Why what?  I don't understand your question.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Not denial, no; that's a heck of a leap to make.
> 
> My conclusions on that come from reading punter.net (a dismal chore) which is very much mainstream.  I accept your professional experience with vulnerable people has shown you a different picture.



Yes, punter.net is going to be a reliable source isn't it?  Has it never occured to you that punters have a vested interest in denying the reality of what they do?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Yan Yang, a 50-year-old woman [was] gaoled for 10 months at Ipswich Crown Court this week. Her 'human trafficking' offence was to arrange a taxi from the local station for two young women who had come from London to work for her.
> 
> source



Oh look, another unbiased source.

Honestly Jonti, you have a go at Jazzz for his sources, then you post this?


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Has it never occured to you that punters have a vested interest in denying the reality of what they do?


On what grounds? That you imagine you share the same moral core, but they've just given into temptation? It doesn't work like that.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Do you not get more satisfaction though from the great gush that can only be produced when someone else does it for you? Especially over their face. Fantastic. Kneeling in heels. Christ. That's a thrill you just can't get for free. In fact, paying for it is all part of the excitement. Don't you think? Yes. Yes you do.



You really are a twat arent you.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> But why is commodification of sex services worse than commodification of any other labour? (Assuming consensual).



Because sex (IMO) isn't labour.  It's an intimate human relationship.

I find it rather odd that lefties will defend the commodification of intimate human relationships.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> You really are a twat arent you.


Oh come on. Don't tell me volume isn't important to you Grandma. I know girls who've got a real fetish for it. I've trained one to spontaneously orgasm the moment the jizz hits her skin. Months of Pavlovian conditioning it took. Fucking not easy.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 22, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> The very vast majority of sex workers go quietly about their business and never get involved in surveys.



On my 21st birthday I went with some mates to a house party, got very drunk and ended up going home with a lovely blonde woman. We spent the night having fun and the next morning we were lying in bed and she asked me what I did. I said I was a student. I asked her and she said she was a prostitute. I was a bit stunned and thought my mates had set me up, but she told me not to worry, it was her night off and she had fancied me and that was that. I spent the weekend with her and it turned out she worked from home and had a list of clients who would ring her up and come round to her flat which was pretty luxorious. We got on really well, but I just couldn't really deal with the fact that she slept with other men for money so I didn't see her again. I hope she found someone who could deal with it. She had lots of money, but it did seem a bit of a lonely lifestyle. She also said that her mum had been a prostitute and that had made it easier for her to get into that line of work. I can imagine there are plenty of other people who work like that, not just drug addicts paying for their next fix.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Because sex (IMO) isn't labour.  It's an intimate human relationship.


Between two people who wuv each ova vewy much. I fucking told you lot someone was going to post this eventually.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9855407&postcount=262


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> All alienation/commodification stems from selling your body's output. What makes sex special (assuming again, consensual) ?



Because it's connected to reproduction, romantic relationships, self esteem, pair bonding etc.  Now of course I know that in humans, it doesn't have to neccesarily be connected to these things, however, sex evolved to serve a specific function.  Humans have partly transcended this, but not wholly.  We still have those evolutionary older parts of our brains, which our rational self-conscious parts are actually built from.  Dopamine is released during sex (a reward chemical) and oxytocin (a hormone which promotes pair bonding).  These tap into very primitive parts of our pysche, which (IMO) make sex qualitatively different from working on a check out.  And that's leaving out historical and social context, patriarchy etc!


----------



## dylans (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Dylans too thick to spot irony.




Hey don't listen to me.
 It is sex workers themselves who dispute your claim that they are all junkies, slaves and "victims." 

It is their voices you refuse to acknowledge or hear because what they say doesn't fit with your moral outlook. That is arrogance

 It is their experiences you dismiss with your claim that you know better. That is what is arrogant. 

You *"know that behind most prostitutes there's a story-drugs, organised crime, sexual abuse, pimps." *

It is sex workers who are saying that they are not victims and that they don't want to be "rescued" and they don't want to learn to fucking sew.

It is sex workers who are saying that they want to make a living in safety without fear of arrest or of having to bribe the cops or of being "rescued" against their will by moralists like you.
It is sex workers who are saying they want to earn a living in safe conditions free from abuse, coercion and exploitation. They want rights 

Oh but they are just "victims" aren't they?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> You've made two different points there. The first one is about a difference between selling your body and selling your body's output. Sex is a function/output - it's not your body.



What?  Sex is a function of your body!  You can't seperate it!

Sex is an output, what alienated rubbish.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> Anyone that's on the breadline will have substance misuse, self medication problems. Not just sex workers.



Everyone on the dole has a drug problem?  Have you suddenly started writing for the Daily Mail?


----------



## Carousel (Oct 22, 2009)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Because it's connected to reproduction, romantic relationships, self esteem, pair bonding etc


Look out boys it's the fucking Pope.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

dylans said:


> Hey don't listen to me....



Funnily enough I don't. Clearly you can't even be arsed to read what I have posted or other people have posted. Why should I even try listening to someone who doesn't listen others? 

You're to fucking thick to even spot irony in your own posts-frankly you're very boring.


----------



## dylans (Oct 22, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Funnily enough I don't. .



yeah I noticed.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 22, 2009)

dylans said:


> yeah I noticed.



Wow...you've actually noticed? Good don't hold back...whilst you're on fire try go back and read how you've made a complete tit of yourself by making assumptions about mine and other peoples stance Perhaps then you'll be taken more seriously.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Oh come on. Don't tell me volume isn't important to you Grandma. I know girls who've got a real fetish for it. I've trained one to spontaneously orgasm the moment the jizz hits her skin. Months of Pavlovian conditioning it took. Fucking not easy.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 22, 2009)

Carousel said:


> Oh come on. Don't tell me volume isn't important to you Grandma. I know girls who've got a real fetish for it. I've trained one to spontaneously orgasm the moment the jizz hits her skin. Months of Pavlovian conditioning it took. Fucking not easy.



Sure she's not faking it so the jerk fucks off quicker?


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Everyone on the dole has a drug problem?  Have you suddenly started writing for the Daily Mail?



I said anyone not everyone you complete fucking idiot.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Because sex (IMO) isn't labour.  It's an intimate human relationship.
> 
> I find it rather odd that lefties will defend the commodification of intimate human relationships.




I'm not defending the commodification of anything. I'm challenging why the selling or bartering of sex (in whatever form) should be worse than any other kind of commodification.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Because it's connected to reproduction, romantic relationships, self esteem, pair bonding etc.  Now of course I know that in humans, it doesn't have to neccesarily be connected to these things, however, sex evolved to serve a specific function.  Humans have partly transcended this, but not wholly.  We still have those evolutionary older parts of our brains, which our rational self-conscious parts are actually built from.  Dopamine is released during sex (a reward chemical) and oxytocin (a hormone which promotes pair bonding).  These tap into very primitive parts of our pysche, which (IMO) make sex qualitatively different from working on a check out.  And that's leaving out historical and social context, patriarchy etc!



Hard wired to hallow sex? And then nurtured by a patriarchal society to reinforce that hard wiring?

To whose benefit?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> I said anyone not everyone you complete fucking idiot.


anyone on the dole has a drug problem? What? Still reads like a daily mail headline. What are you on about?


----------



## agricola (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> Hey don't listen to me.



What a good idea!  It is awfully hard to make out what you are saying, so very high is your horse.




			
				dylans said:
			
		

> It is sex workers themselves who dispute your claim that they are all junkies, slaves and "victims."
> 
> It is their voices you refuse to acknowledge or hear because what they say doesn't fit with your moral outlook. That is arrogance



Really?  In 23 pages of this thread it only ever seems to be the same people that are posting actual, checkable, reports and evidence.  You, and Jessiedog (to a slightly lesser extent) are instead painting an entirely fact-free picture of jolly whores making a mint on their backs, whilst chortling at the fools working for the man in various low-paid jobs.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> Hard wired to hallow sex? And then nurtured to reinforce that hard wiring?
> 
> To whose benefit?


Hallow sex? What on earth are you on about? You seem to have lost your marbles


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> anyone on the dole has a drug problem? What? Still reads like a daily mail headline. What are you on about?



But I didn't fucking say that. Don't make up what I said rather than address the substance of what I did say.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Hallow sex? What on earth are you on about? You seem to have lost your marbles



You're the person that sets sex aside in a reverential manner - you're the person that reveres it. Or are you saying that you don't revere it?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> But I didn't fucking say that. Don't make up what I said rather than address the substance of what I did say.


You said anyone on the breadline will have a drug problem.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> You're the person that sets sex aside in a reverential manner - you're the person that reveres it. Or are you saying that you don't revere it?


How on earth did you get that from what i wrote? You seen to have taken leave of your senses!


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You said anyone on the breadline will have a drug problem.



No I didn't. 

Go back and reread exactly what I said in the context of replying to Belboid's post.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> No I didn't.
> 
> Go back and reread exactly what I said in the context of replying to Belboid's post.


I just did. You're not expressing yourself very well. If you mean that if you take a sample of people on the breadline and a large minority will have drug problems then say that. I'm not sure if it's true though. Got any stats?


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> How on earth did you get that from what i wrote? You seen to have taken leave of your senses!






			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> Because it's connected to reproduction, romantic relationships, self esteem, pair bonding etc. Now of course I know that in humans, it doesn't have to neccesarily be connected to these things, however, sex evolved to serve a specific function. Humans have partly transcended this, but not wholly. We still have those evolutionary older parts of our brains, which our rational self-conscious parts are actually built from. Dopamine is released during sex (a reward chemical) and oxytocin (a hormone which promotes pair bonding). These tap into very primitive parts of our pysche, which (IMO) make sex qualitatively different from working on a check out. And that's leaving out historical and social context, patriarchy etc!



Because this reads (to me) as if the function of sex - of which reproduction is an essential by product - is beyond a value. There's something religious about that kind of elevation. Not in an organised religion sense, but organised religion has certainly exploited that elevation of sex, reproduction and purity.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I just did. You're not expressing yourself very well. If you mean that if you take a sample of people on the breadline and a large minority will have drug problems then say that. I'm not sure if it's true though. Got any stats?



You're not expressing yourself very well either. Saying that someone's "lost their marbles" etc in response to points & getting aggressive, will only get a similar response back. I said earlier on that I don't have any hard data, just anecdotal stuff and that I'm unwilling to rely on that. I asked you if you had any hard data but you just said that you didn't understand my question 

And putting all that you said, no you said, stuff aside - most of the stats that people quote will tend to be where the surveys are conducted - at the worst end of the scale. The sex industry is vast, much more vast and far ranging than the tiny end of the worst of it* that people and legislators focus on.


* Be clear, I'm not suggesting that the worst of it shouldn't be addressed.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> lol, prat.  did you ignore the 'work for her ' part?


I daresay the fact the woman could be demonised as a pimp had a lot to do with the decision to "throw the book at her".  But you are too eager to abuse not only prostitutes, but those decent folks who want no part of that abuse, and protest against it.  

The fact that established her guilt was that Yan Yang arranged a taxi from the rail station to the brothel ~ that was enough to establish her "guilt" of  trafficking.





> Her “human trafficking” offence was to arrange a taxi from the local station for two young women who had come from London to work for her.
> 
> ...
> 
> The arrangement of a taxi, then (maximum sentence 14 years) is deemed twice as serious as running a brothel. Do consider this next time you book one: in UK criminal justice terms, you could open two brothels for the price.


Why do you you lie and misinform people about the legal position? 

Your militant ignorance makes it hard to think there can be any good reason for this.  It is hard to avoid the conclusion that you think it right to punish and abuse prostitutes, and others in the sex industry.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ... I am politically and morally opposed to prostitution.
> 
> ... I know that behind most prostitutes there's a story-drugs, organised crime, sexual abuse, pimps etc


But not, it seems, to smears, lies and bullying. You know no such thing. Like belboid, and Jacqui Smith, your "facts" are spun from the whole cloth of your predudice and delusion.

I guess that's what having such a high horse does to a chap.

Others may also be "morally opposed to prostitution", but they don't need to stoop to your depths.  That leads me to think there's something more than "moral" opposition to your position; something more that lies behind your enthusiasm for punishing prostitutes; and people in their lives; and even ordinary folks who want to see less hypocrisy and legal harassment of some of the most vulnerable people in the work force.

You are one sick puppy.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Oh look, another unbiased source.
> 
> Honestly Jonti, you have a go at Jazzz for his sources, then you post this?


Again the smears from the puritan tendency. It's a court case, in the public record. You can check the info yourself.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> Hey don't listen to me.
> It is sex workers themselves who dispute your claim that they are all junkies, slaves and "victims."
> 
> It is their voices you refuse to acknowledge or hear because what they say doesn't fit with your moral outlook. That is arrogance
> ...


^ this 

World Charter For Prostitutes' Rights


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

agricola said:


> You, and Jessiedog (to a slightly lesser extent) are instead painting a*n entirely fact-free picture* of jolly whores making a mint on their backs, whilst chortling at the fools working for the man in various low-paid jobs.




Really? Who posted these links?


http://blip.tv/file/970833/

http://blip.tv/file/1176895

Why not take 5 minutes to actually listen to what those on the receiving end of anti-trafficking legislation have to say?


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Those studies are conducted among prostitutes recruited from drug clinics.
> 
> The vast majority of prostitutes work quiety in their own homes, or in discreet brothels and are never captured by these surveys.


rubbish, completely and utterly wrong. both in where people work and in where people can be surveyed.




> Nonsense.
> 
> The very vast majority of sex workers go quietly about their business and never get involved in surveys.


rubbish.

I note that you cannot quote a single fact or source to back up your rubbish, which says it all really.  You are going on your own prejudices and preferences, nothing else.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I daresay the fact the woman could be demonised as a pimp had a lot to do with the decision to "throw the book at her".  But you are too eager to abuse not only prostitutes, but those decent folks who want no part of that abuse, and protest against it.
> 
> The fact that established her guilt was that Yan Yang arranged a taxi from the rail station to the brothel ~ that was enough to establish her "guilt" of  trafficking.Why do you you lie and misinform people about the legal position?
> 
> Your militant ignorance makes it hard to think there can be any good reason for this.  It is hard to avoid the conclusion that you think it right to punish and abuse prostitutes, and others in the sex industry.



hehehe, you fucking moron. A magnificently stupid poist, even bvy your standards. If what you had claimed were true the _taxi driver_ would have got done.  he didn't.  Why?  Because he didn't control the sex worker, unlike Yan Yang.  Now, I dont think YY should have been prosecuted (oh, sorry, I'm not following your fiction about what I'm supposed to believe now, woops), but it is quite simply the case that you are wrong about exactly what the law means.


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> I note that you cannot quote a single fact or source to back up your rubbish, which says it all really.  You are going on your own prejudices and preferences, nothing else.



Apart from the links I posted above?  

British sex workers say no to criminalisation

http://www.xtalkproject.net/?p=344

More evidence that trafficking is a myth
http://bristolnoborders.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/more-evidence-that-sex-trafficking-is-a-myth/


The war on "trafficking veils a war on immigration
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5973/

Australian sex workers speak out on "trafficking"
http://www.bayswan.org/Austraf.html

British prostitutes speak out 
http://www.politics.co.uk/analysis/legal-and-constitutional/prostitution-law-sex-workers-speak-out-$1250020.htm

Indian and Pakistani sex workers assert their rights
http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/AH18Df02.html

Are you actually interested in the voices of sex workers? Not a single fact?


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

you're not called jessiedog are you?  cos thats who I was speaking to at that point.  Such dishonesty from you is really impressive.

most of your links actually have no relevance to anything I have said (and most arent actually 'facts', they are opinions)  I fully support, as I've said over and over, workers rights for sex workers, and am against criminalisation.  but that is no reason to simply shut your eyes and ears and say that there is nothing wrong with the profession as you are doing.  None of the articles show that trafficking does not exist, they simply point out that it is exageratted and used to pursue a right wing agenda. The way to oppose that agenda is not to stick your head in the sand and pretend there's nothing wrong at all,  that only goes to help the right.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> hehehe, you fucking moron. A magnificently stupid poist, even bvy your standards. If what you had claimed were true the _taxi driver_ would have got done.  he didn't.  Why?  Because he didn't control the sex worker, unlike Yan Yang.  Now, I dont think YY should have been prosecuted (oh, sorry, I'm not following your fiction about what I'm supposed to believe now, woops), but it is quite simply the case that you are wrong about exactly what the law means.


I'm not going to do your research for you.  You have enough information on the Yan Yang case to find out more, if you choose.

She was prosecuted for arranging a taxi for the prostitutes. Under UK law, the prosecution would have succeeded whoever owned the brothel.  

All your name-calling and bluster will not change that.  It would be better for you to show your evidence to the contrary, if you have any.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid, it you with your head in the sand ~ it is you who has swallowed Jacqui Smith's lies


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

agricola, no one has painted an entirely fact-free picture of jolly whores making a mint on their backs, whilst chortling at the fools working for the man in various low-paid jobs. No-one.

*We have pointed out that, if sex-work is necessarily the bleak hell the moralisers and prohibitionists proclaim, then there are plenty of McJobs out there, should sex-workers find them preferable. But it seems they do not.*

It is to counter this rather obvious and easy rebuttal, that the myths about trafficking and slavery have been invented.  One can reject those lies (and it now well documented they are lies ~ the whole thread is about that fact!)

What's happened in this thread is that the lies about uk sex-workers promulgated by Jacqui Smith have been exposed.  She is an intolerant and deceitful moraliser who has no sense of shame or social responsibility; she wouldn't lie so consistently about some of the most vulnerable people in our society otherwise.  The same can now be said of those who follow her line,  as they longer have any excuse for echoing her mendacious posturing.  

It is her acolytes, the control-freaks and puritan moralisers who live in a fact-free fantasy. Like all folks with a firm belief in their own moral superiority, they have simply rejected what sex-workers themselves say; nor will they accept the most basic facts about the legal repression of prostitutes.  Lies, smears, sneers and distortions are their stock-in-trade.

It is not illegal to give a sex-partner money, nor can it in any conscience be made illegal. So instead prostitutes are hemmed in by laws that make it impossible openly to live a normal life. The moralisers are happy with this, for they cannot conceive prostitutes are normal people.  But the woman at the supermarket check-out, the waitress in your cafe, may chance a wink at a likely looking punter a few times a week and easily double their earnings.

A lot of this money is remitted overseas, to support the woman's parents and extended family, who would otherwise be living in grinding hopeless poverty.  Of course she doesn't tell them that busy men seeking feminine solace are grateful for her 'affections' and tip her generously, so to speak.

That's just the way it is. One doesn't have to like it, to understand the law should get off their case.  It can be a dirty business, true. But apart from ensuring the safety and protection of sex-workers, it is not the government's business.


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> you're not called jessiedog are you?  cos thats who I was speaking to at that point.  Such dishonesty from you is really impressive.
> 
> most of your links actually have no relevance to anything I have said (and most arent actually 'facts', they are opinions)  I fully support, as I've said over and over, workers rights for sex workers, and am against criminalisation.  but that is no reason to simply shut your eyes and ears and say that there is nothing wrong with the profession as you are doing.  None of the articles show that trafficking does not exist, they simply point out that it is exageratted and used to pursue a right wing agenda. The way to oppose that agenda is not to stick your head in the sand and pretend there's nothing wrong at all,  that only goes to help the right.



They are the voices of those in the industry. They should be listened to. One of the consequences of the whole sex worker "victim" discourse is that the voices of sex workers is ignored. This entire thread is a good example of that.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I'm not going to do your research for you.  You have enough information on the Yan Yang case to find out more, if you choose.
> 
> She was prosecuted for arranging a taxi for the prostitutes. Under UK law, the prosecution would have succeeded whoever owned the brothel.
> 
> All your name-calling and bluster will not change that.  It would be better for you to show your evidence to the contrary, if you have any.



I've shown it you thick lying fuckwit.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> They are the voices of those in the industry. They should be listened to. One of the consequences of the whole sex worker "victim" discourse is that the voices of sex workers is ignored. This entire thread is a good example of that.



of course they should bne listened to - and they have been.  To pretend that its only you and the three punters on here who 'listen' to sex workers is rubbish.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

They want you to get off their case, belboid ~ it is not _your_ business.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

is that what they told you when you paid them last night?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Low, very low.  Gives the lie to your claim to be listening, that does.

But (if you were not just smearing and lying), why would that matter to you, belboid?


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

i dont claim to be listening to you, why would i listen to a piece of shit?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Because it would play into your fantasies about punishing prostitutes, perhaps?


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> is that what they told you when you paid them last night?



Oh dear. I think you should just admit that you have lost


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

you're not very good at this are you?

(which is probably someting else you were told last night)


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid, I notice that you hide your real identity. 

Like GrandmaDeath, you are just another keyboard coward, hiding behind your internet anonymity to slander people.


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> i dont claim to be listening to you, why would i listen to a rapist?



How about the listening to the words of a rape victim

http://blip.tv/file/970833/


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> belboid, I notice that you hide your real identity.
> 
> Like GrandmaDeath, you are just another keyboard coward, hiding behind your internet anonymity to slander people.





congratulations, you win the award for being the thickest fuck on the boards today 'jonti' (which is obviously your real name address AND date of birth all in five short letters!)


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Check my profile.

 I very much doubt you would feel like calling me a rapist for my support of John Stuart Mill, were we together in the real world, and you couldn't hide behind your internet anonymity.

Maybe I'm wrong about that. But I don't think so.


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> congratulations, you win the award for being the thickest fuck on the boards today 'jonti' (which is obviously your real name address AND date of birth all in five short letters!)



No belboid. That's you. You should stop now. You are making a real fool of yourself


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> How about the listening to the words of a rape victim
> 
> http://blip.tv/file/970833/



can't play that at work, but I still would doubt it actually concerns the issues being discussed. Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that I have said repeatedly that the criminalisation of sex work has a disastrous effect upon the women involved? It is perfectly possible to support sex workers' rights without buying every myth about the joys of such work.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> No belboid. That's you. You should stop now. You are making a real fool of yourself



no, i'm making fools of you and jonti.  You are bnoth incapable of making an argument, so pursue petty shite.  i expect nothing else off him, with you, its a bit sad.  Hey ho


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> can't play that at work, but I still would doubt it actually concerns the issues being discussed. Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that I have said repeatedly that the criminalisation of sex work has a disastrous effect upon the women involved? It is perfectly possible to support sex workers' rights without buying every myth about the joys of such work.



No one is making that claim belboid. Noone


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> no, i'm making fools of you and jonti.  You are bnoth incapable of making an argument, so pursue petty shite.  i expect nothing else off him, with you, its a bit sad.  Hey ho



Your the only one throwing abuse around. Why don't you calm down, apologise to Jonti for that fucking outrageous smear and treat your opponents with a little respect?


----------



## editor (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> is that what they told you when you paid them last night?





belboid said:


> i dont claim to be listening to you, why would i listen to a rapist?


I'm not sure what's going on here, but I can't say I like the look of it.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

I think the proposition I am incapable of making an argument, is not one that can be sustained.

I should think it is those who respond to the arguments of John Stuart Mill with cries of "rapist!" that we should look to, if we wish to find the mindless haters.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I think the proposition I am incapable of making an argument, is not one that can be sustained.
> 
> I should think it is those who respond to the arguments of John Stuart Mill with cries of "rapist!" that we should look to, if we wish to find the mindless haters.



you havent used any of JSM's arguments, that another lie.

Last comment to you from me, I have no interest in your explicit lies and fantasies.  Goodbye


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

editor said:


> I'm not sure what's going on here, but I can't say I like the look of it.



fair enoguh - tho if you (could be arsed to) look back thorough the thread, you'd see him being similarly abuisive.  I will stick him on ignore tho, he hasn't actually said anything of note, so I wont be missing owt.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Pick up the phone belboid ~ you can find my phone number easily enough.

If, that is, you have the courage and decency to talk the real person, rather than publishing lies about him on the internet.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> Your the only one throwing abuse around. Why don't you calm down, apologise to Jonti for that fucking outrageous smear and treat your opponents with a little respect?



I treat with respect those deserving of respect. Disingenuous liars do not fit into that category.


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> I treat with respect those deserving of respect. Disingenuous liars do not fit into that category.



Your out of order. Be a man and admit it. Apologise and delete that post. Or are you a complete coward?

and you look through the post's noone has treated you with such abuse.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid uses the internet to anonymously attack identifiable folks, to lie about them,  to publicly smear them as rapists just for the thought-crime of liberalism.  

He does this because he wants more punishment for prostitutes.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

oh do fuck off. Posturing moralism to cover your lack of argument.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

LOL @ belboid

It is not me who wants to impose my morality on others, using lies and smears to try to intimidate the opposition into silence.

You do that, belboid. You and your political masters.


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> oh do fuck off. Posturing moralism to cover your lack of argument.



No,  again Belboid that is you. 
Our argument is very simple. People have the right to do what they choose with their own bodies and they should be able to do that free from prosecution, arrest, rape, coercian and abuse.

The way to do that is to give them their rights.

Why do you have a problem with that?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> Because this reads (to me) as if the function of sex - of which reproduction is an essential by product - is beyond a value. There's something religious about that kind of elevation. Not in an organised religion sense, but organised religion has certainly exploited that elevation of sex, reproduction and purity.



I think that says more about your views on sex than mine!  Quite how you get religion out of a post based on biology and neurology, I don't know.  Bizarro!


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> You're not expressing yourself very well either. Saying that someone's "lost their marbles" etc in response to points & getting aggressive, will only get a similar response back. I said earlier on that I don't have any hard data, just anecdotal stuff and that I'm unwilling to rely on that. I asked you if you had any hard data but you just said that you didn't understand my question
> 
> And putting all that you said, no you said, stuff aside - most of the stats that people quote will tend to be where the surveys are conducted - at the worst end of the scale. The sex industry is vast, much more vast and far ranging than the tiny end of the worst of it* that people and legislators focus on.
> 
> ...



I'm saying you've lost your marbles because you're posting stuff like "Anyone that's on the breadline will have substance misuse, self medication problems. Not just sex workers", which is frankly, quite an odd thing to say.  Then you interpet a post about biology and neurology to be about religion!  Very strange.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Again the smears from the puritan tendency. It's a court case, in the public record. You can check the info yourself.



In that case you can give an unbiased source can't you.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> No,  again Belboid that is you.
> Our argument is very simple. People have the right to do what they choose with their own bodies and they should be able to do that free from prosecution, arrest, rape, coercian and abuse.
> 
> The way to do that is to give them their rights.
> ...



I dont. I have repeatedly said that I dont, why you repeatedly deny that I have done so is a mystery to me.

And why you demand I apologise, but not Jonti for his string of abuse (eg I want to kill prostitutes) is also beyond me.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> They want you to get off their case, belboid ~ it is not _your_ business.



It is my business, I help pick up the pieces.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

I understand you work with drug addicts, some of whom have sold sex to raise money.  

That's not actually typical of the uk prostitution situation. Prostitution is mind-bogglingly widespread, and very largely hidden.  Of course: just look at the stigma it carries. Even classical liberal arguments on the subject attract rabid hostility these days

But no, that does not mean you have any right to dictate what consenting adults do in private, anymore than if you worked in a sex clinic.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 23, 2009)

> But no, that does not mean you have any right to dictate what consenting adults do in private, anymore than if you worked in a sex clinic.


And herein lies the crux of the matter. In a democracy, to what extent do we have the right to impose the majority’s view? In Sweden, they’ve decided they do have the right. I suppose one could also ask to what extent we’re obliged to sanitise society for the sake of the vulnerable. I was chatting to a girlfriend about this last night, you should see her eyes light up with mischievous delight when I set out the answer was “none”. What a picture.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Not the case.
> 
> 
> Under UK law, this includes _all_ willing participants. This inflates the numbers astronomically.
> ...



I've already stated that I'm not talking about the UK. Over and over again.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

The misrepresentation of the uk prostitution scene by the government, particularly its misrepresentation of _trafficking_ is the subject of the thread. From the OP ...,





> The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country. ...


Sure, threads wander from the OP, but it's OK for JD to want to stick to the topic of the thread as well.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I understand you work with drug addicts, some of whom have sold sex to raise money.
> 
> *That's not actually typical of the uk prostitution situation.* Prostitution is mind-bogglingly widespread, and very largely hidden.  Of course: just look at the stigma it carries. Even classical liberal arguments on the subject attract rabid hostility these days



Actually I think it is typical.  Drug addiction and sexual abuse.  Of course I'm sure there are people it doesn't apply to, but they're in the minority IMO.



Jonti said:


> But no, that does not mean you have any right to dictate what consenting adults do in private, anymore than if you worked in a sex clinic.



Straw man.  No one on this thread is saying they do have that right.  No one.  Stop misrepresenting the argument.  You *always* do this on these threads.  Why is that?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 23, 2009)

These sorts of discussions are always of use.

Firstly, they sometimes allow a few of the scumbags who use prostitutes to out themselves as such. Secondly, on almost every occasion, they encourage some cretinously stupid people (well, cretinously stupid men) who think that prostitution can reasonably be discussed in terms of prostituted women's right to choose to be exploited (sorry, their right to "do what they choose with their own bodies") to out themselves as such.

There is almost no other topic of conversation which can so quickly and effectively allow people to fill their ignore lists.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

That's your opinion; others disagree.

Some things are clear; the government have been caught out lying about the numbers of women trafficked into the sex industry, and have also been caught out conflating trafficked women with enslaved women.  

One slave working in the sex trade is one too many; but by not paying attention to the real situation, the government has shown it simply doesn't care about women in that position.

Them's the facts.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> No one on this thread is saying they do have that right.


Oh come on. Are you saying you've no right to stop me from fucking some chick in exchange for a bag of charlie and a few pills?


----------



## Carousel (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Firstly, they sometimes allow a few of the scumbags who use prostitutes to out themselves as such.


Yeah well. When you see some fine assed £400 an hour honey licking your jizz off her tits, the thought of chaps like you, whose idea of a decent fuck is a fat hairy lipped minger with a 70’s style bush, calling us scumbags doesn’t really register. It’s a bit like you calling Ronaldo a rich arrogant cunt or whatever. I’m sure he’s gutted.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> That's your opinion; others disagree.



Yes, the vermin who use prostitutes for instance.

Hopefully within a few years Britain will have gone down the Swedish road and such scumbags will be criminalised. Better still, with a bit of luck they can be put on the sex offenders register.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 23, 2009)

Sweden, now there's a fucking laugh, all I've got to do is take a camera with me and the whole thing becomes magically legit. It was an audition guv. You people. I don't know.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, the vermin who use prostitutes for instance.
> 
> Hopefully within a few years Britain will have gone down the Swedish road and such scumbags will be criminalised. Better still, with a bit of luck they can be put on the sex offenders register.



Are you including the disabled in that?


----------



## Carousel (Oct 23, 2009)

Only if they pay in cash directly. If it's paid for with dinner and a movie, it'll be transformed into a "consensual" act.


----------



## Mooncat (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, the vermin who use prostitutes for instance.
> 
> Hopefully within a few years Britain will have gone down the Swedish road and such scumbags will be criminalised. Better still, with a bit of luck they can be put on the sex offenders register.



You mean the Swedish road leading leading to the border with eastern Europe which is where all the 'scumbags' head down now


----------



## Mooncat (Oct 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> Are you including the disabled in that?



"why would I want to wipe some spackers arse in a mental home for £7.50 an hour when I can crack someone off for £20?"


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 23, 2009)

Mooncat said:


> You mean the Swedish road leading leading to the border with eastern Europe which is where all the 'scumbags' head down now



What "border with Eastern Europe" would that be? Have you ever seen a map of Sweden, or has being such a wanker made you blind?


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Hopefully within a few years Britain will have gone down the Swedish road and such scumbags will be criminalised. Better still, with a bit of luck they can be put on the sex offenders register.



the Swedish model has made women less safe. It's hardly a route one should go down. New Zealand is a much better proposal.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2009)

Mooncat said:


> "why would I want to wipe some spackers arse in a mental home for £7.50 an hour when I can crack someone off for £20?"



Quite.

But from the 'spacker's' point of view - why the fuck should people like Nigel deny them sex?


----------



## Mooncat (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What "border with Eastern Europe" would that be? Have you ever seen a map of Sweden, or has being such a wanker made you blind?




awww bless.  

Do you want me to put it up on Autoroute for you?  Get you the ferry times?


----------



## Carousel (Oct 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> But from the 'spacker's' point of view - why the fuck should people like Nigel deny them sex?


Because sex must be regulated. Obviously. Otherwise the moral fabric of society will collapse. It's for two pweeple who wuv each ova vewy much.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> the Swedish model has made women less safe. It's hardly a route one should go down. New Zealand is a much better proposal.



No, it isn't. 

The New Zealand model accepts and normalises the idea that men are entitled to rent women's bodies for sex. Society has a legitimate interest in saying that no, they don't. What's more, "normalising" the use of prostituted women will have the direct effect of increasing demand for prostitutes, which will, through the wonders of market capitalism create over a period a greater supply of prostitutes.

The answer to prostitution isn't nicer prostitution it's getting people out of prostitution. Normalising prostitution runs directly against that legitimate goal.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 23, 2009)

Uh huh. Its legitimacy is essentially contestable though. I mean, it's hard to see your objection if not either on religious grounds or some mad desire to sanitise society for the sake of the vulnerable. I mean, which is it? Both?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 23, 2009)

Mooncat said:


> awww bless.
> 
> Do you want me to put it up on Autoroute for you?  Get you the ferry times?



I'm quite sure that persistent abusers of women will be willing to travel to the very Southern tip of Sweden, get a ferry to Eastern Europe, use a prostituted woman, then get a ferry back to Sweden and travel home on occasion. Those occasions will however be rare for all but the most dedicated abusers, because of the time, hassle and expense involved. If they have to go through that sort of ordeal every time they want to rent out a woman's body for sex, it will inevitably depress the regularity with which they do so.

And if most of them as bright as you are they will spend quite considerable amounts of time driving around looking for the non-existent Swedish border with Eastern Europe.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 23, 2009)

Come on Nige. What's the objection? Religious doctrine or an over developed compulsion to protect society’s most vulnerable from vice?


----------



## Mooncat (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm quite sure that persistent abusers of women will be willing to travel to the very Southern tip of Sweden, get a ferry to Eastern Europe, use a prostituted woman, then get a ferry back to Sweden and travel home on occasion.



Yes. Yes they will. Especially when they notice how much further their money goes. 



Nigel Irritable said:


> And if most of them as bright as you are they will spend quite considerable amounts of time driving around looking for the non-existent Swedish border with Eastern Europe.



As you well know the non-existent border is a non-existent issue.  The Swedish model you laud has simply moved the market to less well protected and dare I say it, more exploited women.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> The New Zealand model accepts and normalises the idea that men are entitled to rent women's bodies for sex. Society has a legitimate interest in saying that no, they don't. What's more, "normalising" the use of prostituted women will have the direct effect of increasing demand for prostitutes, which will, through the wonders of market capitalism create over a period a greater supply of prostitutes.
> 
> The answer to prostitution isn't nicer prostitution it's getting people out of prostitution. Normalising prostitution runs directly against that legitimate goal.


prostitution _is_ normalised already, crackdowns do not work.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2009)

jesus christ, what a fucking car crash this thread has beocme.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

any thread with carousel on tends to veer in that direction.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 23, 2009)

> what a fucking car crash this thread has beocme.


Car crashes. Hmmm. Hot.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2009)

the only problenm is you're not as articulate or intelligent as jg ballard ...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> prostitution _is_ normalised already,



No, it really isn't. See for instance the reluctance of the people who use prostituted women on this thread to admit that they do so. The stigma it still carries is very important.

As for "crackdowns", I'm only in favour of them against pimps and abusers (or "punters"). Even then, I quite agree that they aren't enough by themselves and the wider picture has to be addressed. The legalisation of drugs, including in particular the medicalisation of heroin, significant increases in social welfare payments and the loosening of anti-immigrant legislation are all necessary too.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 23, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> the only problenm is you're not as articulate or intelligent as jg ballard ...


In what way is it a "problenm"? And for who? Besides, I'm fucking well vulnerable me, show some solidarity. I’m a lezza myself as it happens.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> See for instance the reluctance of the people who use prostituted women on this thread to admit that they do so.


And the clock strikes 13:15. I'm going to fucking use one right now as it happens, out of spite for you. I hope you're happy. As I blow my load over her crack warped face I'll shout, this one's for you Nige! You must be very proud.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

One of the factors in Birmingham that pushed some male drug users into sex work was being ASBO'd from the city centre so it became harder to fund habits through shoplifting.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 23, 2009)

Carousel said:


> I’m a lezza myself as it happens.



Would that be one in a male body?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> But not, it seems, to smears, lies and bullying. You know no such thing. Like belboid, and Jacqui Smith, your "facts" are spun from the whole cloth of your predudice and delusion.



Hey I'm not the one living in the 'Happer Hooker' myth like world where prostitutes choose to sell themselves and they are all happy individuals. You my fucked up friend are the deluded one.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> Are you actually interested in the voices of sex workers? Not a single fact?




Erm well yeah I am....are you??



> Prostitutes frequently suffer from mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (2,3,4,5), sexual victimization by customers (6), and potentially fatal sexually transmitted diseases (2,7,8,9,10,11,12). Women who are prostitutes have difficulty disengaging from the lifestyle of prostitution (2,4,13). The prevalence of prostitution and its profoundly negative mental health outcomes underscore the need to understand the factors that lead women to enter into this high-risk lifestyle.



Link


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No, it really isn't. See for instance the reluctance of the people who use prostituted women on this thread to admit that they do so. The stigma it still carries is very important.
> 
> As for "crackdowns", I'm only in favour of them against pimps and abusers (or "punters"). Even then, I quite agree that they aren't enough by themselves and the wider picture has to be addressed. The legalisation of drugs, including in particular the medicalisation of heroin, significant increases in social welfare payments and the loosening of anti-immigrant legislation are all necessary too.



crackdowns on punters mean that the women - who still rely upon those punters - actively help the men avoid any contact with the law.  It dirves them to less safe environments where violence is much much more likely to happen.  It is a story repeated _every_ time such crackdowns happen.


----------



## innit (Oct 23, 2009)

stephj said:


> Would that be one in a male body?



lol


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Hey I'm not the one living in the 'Happer Hooker' myth like world where prostitutes choose to sell themselves and they are all happy individuals. You my fucked up friend are the deluded one.


Keep up the lies Grandma Death.

Each lie you tell about me makes it clearer that you have no case; that you are just another anonymous internet coward, spewing lies from behind your supposed anonymity.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> crackdowns on punters mean that the women - who still rely upon those punters - actively help the men avoid any contact with the law.  It dirves them to less safe environments where violence is much much more likely to happen.  It is a story repeated _every_ time such crackdowns happen.



I'm unaware of any evidence that violence against prostitutes has increased since the Swedish law was introduced.

I am however aware that the law, the debate about it introduction and then its operation, has shifted social attitudes against the use of prostitutes in Sweden. In particular it has become markedly less accepted amongst young men. This, remember is the main goal of the legislation: To cut down on demand by increasing the social stigma against renting the bodies of prostituted women.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, the vermin who use prostitutes for instance.
> 
> Hopefully within a few years Britain will have gone down the Swedish road and such scumbags will be criminalised. Better still, with a bit of luck they can be put on the sex offenders register.


Not just punters, no.

The view that what consenting adults do in private is no-one's business but their own is one held by quite ordinary liberal minded people.  Try a read of this, for example.

I guess such folks haven't been part of your experience, until now?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Keep up the lies Grandma Death.
> 
> Each lie you tell about me makes it clearer that you have no case; that you are just another anonymous internet coward, spewing lies from behind your supposed anonymity.



Your a deluded paranoid fool-get help. Now.


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Your a deluded paranoid fool-get help. Now.



And you are a lying, bullying misleading, reactionary moraliser who thinks that shouting abuse can substitute for an argument. 

You push your own narrow minded moralism with scant regard for facts, no regard for the voices of those in the industry and total disregard for the suffering that results from your reactionary prohibitionist agenda.

You make me sick. you go and learn to sew in a sweatshop for $50.00 per month


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No, it really isn't. See for instance the reluctance of the people who use prostituted women on this thread to admit that they do so. The stigma it still carries is very important ...


Well yes, that's why a lot of sex-workers travel to another town, or better, another country, if they can.  The moral panic about prostitution has its roots in easier international travel, it seems.

Nigel, are you a mind reader? If _people who use prostituted women_ haven't admitted it, how do you know?

I suspect you of the same dirty tricks we see again and again in these debates.  Any man opposing legal repression must be a punter; any woman doing the same, a whore.

But that's called projection; you think that because your dirty little mind cannot bear the truth. Some people really do think that what consenting adults do in private is none of your business. Or that of your church, or that of your politicians.

Gosh, that's a radical thought, eh?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Not just punters, no.
> 
> The view that what consenting adults do in private is no-one's business but their own is one held by quite ordinary liberal minded people.  Try a read of this, for example.
> 
> I guess such folks haven't been part of your experience, until now?



Ahistorical and abstracted rubbish that article.  It assumes that prostitution takes place completely free of any social and economic context.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Your a deluded paranoid fool-get help. Now.


Sure Grandma Death, of course I am.

Either that or you are a bully and a liar. 

I've a feeling this one will be a no-brainer for most readers here!


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

No, it just makes the classical case for liberal tolerance.

Show the harm, or keep your nose out of my life.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

OK, now back to the real world.

Here's a read on Critiques of Swedish Prostitution Law


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> And you are a lying, bullying misleading, reactionary moraliser who thinks that shouting abuse can substitute for an argument.



...hey I'm not the one blatantly assuming some default position to those who oppose your views and not reading the posts they make. Myopic fool.




> You push your own narrow minded moralism with scant regard for facts,



Yeah funnily enough I notice a distinct lack of comment from you on links provided by myself and other posters.....and I'm narrow minded. Yeah right o...



> no regard for the voices of those in the industry



Proof of this please.



> and total disregard for the suffering that results from your reactionary prohibitionist agenda.



There you go again-making shit up. Point out where I have stated unequivocally that I support prohibition.....don't bother looking cause you won't find it you lying imbecile.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> On my 21st birthday I went with some mates to a house party, got very drunk and ended up going home with a lovely blonde woman. We spent the night having fun and the next morning we were lying in bed and she asked me what I did. I said I was a student. I asked her and she said she was a prostitute. I was a bit stunned and thought my mates had set me up, but she told me not to worry, it was her night off and she had fancied me and that was that. I spent the weekend with her and it turned out she worked from home and had a list of clients who would ring her up and come round to her flat which was pretty luxorious. We got on really well, but I just couldn't really deal with the fact that she slept with other men for money so I didn't see her again. I hope she found someone who could deal with it. She had lots of money, but it did seem a bit of a lonely lifestyle. She also said that her mum had been a prostitute and that had made it easier for her to get into that line of work. I can imagine there are plenty of other people who work like that, not just drug addicts paying for their next fix.




That's pretty much like it is for the vast majority of prostitutes.

Of course, if your "sample" comes from chaotic drug users, you will reach a different (and flawed,) conclusion, if you try and extrapolate into the general population.


Woof


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Well yes, that's why a lot of sex-workers travel to another town, or better, another country, if they can.  The moral panic about prostitution has its roots in easier international travel, it seems.
> 
> Nigel, are you a mind reader? If _people who use prostituted women_ haven't admitted it, how do you know?
> 
> ...



Jonti - you consistently misrepresent people's positions on threads like this.  Why?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> There you go again-making shit up.


Funny guy. You really are too much


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

That's your opinion Blagsta. It seems you cannot tell your opinion from reality.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

stephj said:


> Sure she's not faking it so the jerk fucks off quicker?



Brilliant!

Chuckling away.



Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

*Lies about sexwork in Sweden*

*Is it harmful to have sex with strangers? Is it harmful to make money?*

"No, to sell your time, your company or sexual services is not in itself harmful. But it is damaging to sex workers to be subjected to oppressive conditions like discrimination and social stigma. Swedish prostitution law contributes to such oppression. Sex workers are being discriminated against, and thus prejudice and stereotypes are preserved. Even though the law supposedly aims at protecting sex workers, it is evident that the main purpose of the law is to protect society from a perceived social ill."

more


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Funny guy. You really are too much



Go on help you're mate out-he could do with some support. Perhaps instead of misrepresenting peoples views as you and dylans have how about reading posts-and whilst you're there find evidence where I have explicitly stated I supported prohibition. Dylans could do with some help on this.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> No, it just makes the classical case for liberal tolerance.
> 
> Show the harm, or keep your nose out of my life.



You're right that it's a liberal argument.  Classically liberal as in wanting to see the market rule every aspect of our lives.  Classic liberals love to abstract situations away from historical and social context.  Take the opening sentence - "TWO adults enter a room, agree a price, and have sex."  Who are they?  What country are they in?  Does one have a drug habit?  Does one have a hold over the other in some way?  Does one have any mental health issues?    etc

Abstracted situations tell us nothing useful.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

agricola said:


> What a good idea!  It is awfully hard to make out what you are saying, so very high is your horse.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  In 23 pages of this thread it only ever seems to be the same people that are posting actual, checkable, reports and evidence.  You, and Jessiedog (to a slightly lesser extent) are instead painting an entirely fact-free picture of jolly whores making a mint on their backs, whilst chortling at the fools working for the man in various low-paid jobs.



Naaaah.


The facts are in - it's less than 0.21%.

The rest is nothing other than agenda driven exaggeration.


One is too many though.





Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

It is not me who wants to impose my morality on others, using lies and smears to try to intimidate the opposition into silence.

That's your schtick, Grandma, but it's coming unraveled now. You know it, too.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> *Is it harmful to have sex with strangers? Is it harmful to make money?*
> 
> "No, to sell your time, your company or sexual services is not in itself harmful. But it is damaging to sex workers to be subjected to oppressive conditions like discrimination and social stigma. Swedish prostitution law contributes to such oppression. Sex workers are being discriminated against, and thus prejudice and stereotypes are preserved. Even though the law supposedly aims at protecting sex workers, it is evident that the main purpose of the law is to protect society from a perceived social ill."
> 
> more



I don't think many people on this thread would disagree with much of that.

You're misrepresenting again.  Why?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

> Every person saying that men 'buy our bodies' is guilty of preserving inequality between the sexes. Even though we ourselves and our customers maintain otherwise, such people continue to objectify us, and regard us a commodity.
> 
> ibid


And it shows, it really shows.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> It is not me who wants to impose my morality on others, using lies and smears to try to intimidate the opposition into silence.



More of the same....misrepresentation.



> That's your schtick, Grandma, but it's coming unraveled now. You know it, too.



....delusional nonsense. Do you live in the real world....I suspect not.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> And it shows, it really shows.



Hang on, you've been arguing that selling sex is the same as selling any other type of labour power (i.e. commodification).  Now you're arguing it isn't commodification.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

*more about those swedish sex laws*

*The law against procurement*



> The law against procurement renders it illegal to work indoors, work with others, to profit from the sexual labour of others, and advertise. Due to the law against procurement, sexworkers are forced to lie in order to rent premises, or alternatively they have to pay exorbitant rent. Either way, they constantly worry about being discovered. They also report often having to move (when discovered) and being treated badly by landlords and ’’rent pimps’’. Some women prefer to make contact with their customers on the street. Other sexworkers find this too humiliating.
> 
> ibid


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> *The law against procurement*



On these threads, there is very rarely disagreement about the wisdom of legalising sex work and sex workers having employment rights.  Yet you continually post as if there is.  Why?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

*and this is true in the UK as well*



> This law also makes it difficult for sexworkers to cohabit with a partner since it is illegal to receive any of a sexworker’s income. It is hard for a sexworker to have a family at all since sexworkers are considered to be unfit parents and therefore can lose custody of their children if it emerges that they sell sex.
> 
> ibid


I'm concerned that people seem to be in denial (sic) about the real effect of the laws that deny sex-workers the basic rights most of us take for granted.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

I don't share your views blagsta. I think you are quite wrong to think your experience of drug rehabilitation work gives you a true and fair view of the prostitution in the UK.

And, whether you choose to see it or not, people who stand up for the rights of prostitutes to lead a normal life are regularly and openly reviled on these boards.

That would not be the case, if people really had the liberal values you suggest.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I'm concerned that people seem to be in denial (sic) about the real effect of the laws that deny sex-workers the basic rights most of us take for granted.



You're preaching to the choir.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I don't share your views blagsta. I think you are quite wrong to think your experience of drug rehabilitation work gives you a true and fair view of the prostitution in the UK.
> 
> And, whether you choose to see it or not, people who stand up for the rights of prostitutes to lead a normal life are regularly and openly reviled on these boards.
> 
> That would not be the case, if people really had the liberal values you suggest.



More misrepresentation.


----------



## untethered (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I'm concerned that people seem to be in denial (sic) about the real effect of the laws that deny sex-workers the basic rights most of us take for granted.



You get those rights when your work is 100% legal and doesn't do enormous social damage. Not otherwise.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

You think?

This from a PM of support ... 





> I had this debate here about 6 months ago and it's so predictable. I have been called a whore monger, a paedophile, a pimp an idiot, evil. Same old same old.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> You think?
> 
> This from a PM of support ...



lol, PM's of support, do me a favour


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta is more subtle that other posters, who crudely use insults like those I've quoted. Blagsta's approach is to medicalise progressives, accusing them of being deluded, mocking the idea that they have any support.

Thankfully, some honest opposition has appeared.

Good day to you, untethered.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Blagsta is more subtle that other posters, who crudely use insults like those I've quoted. Blagsta's approach is to medicalise progressives, accusing them of being deluded.
> 
> Thankfully, some honest opposition has appeared.
> 
> Good day to you, untethered.



More misrepresentation.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> lol, PM's of support, do me a favour



When people start wheeling out the 'PM's of support' you know they're losing the argument.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> You're not expressing yourself very well either. Saying that someone's "lost their marbles" etc in response to points & getting aggressive, will only get a similar response back. I said earlier on that I don't have any hard data, just anecdotal stuff and that I'm unwilling to rely on that. I asked you if you had any hard data but you just said that you didn't understand my question
> 
> And putting all that you said, no you said, stuff aside - most of the stats that people quote will tend to be where the surveys are conducted - at the worst end of the scale. The sex industry is vast, much more vast and far ranging than the tiny end of the worst of it* that people and legislators focus on.
> 
> ...




Thankyou cesare.

One is too many.

But less than 0.21% is miniscule and resources should be targetted accordingly (not relatively, of course, given the seriousness of the crime).


Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

untethered said:


> You get those rights when your work is 100% legal and doesn't do enormous social damage. Not otherwise.


I think there are forms of work which are 100% legal and do enormous social damage.

But anyway, it is precisely the notion that prostitution does _enormous social damage_ that we are discussing.

It has always been with us -- it aint't going away any time soon. And in any case, it is hardly practical to make it illagel to give a sex-partner money.

There are many evils that can be made much worse by direct opposition. The proposed remedy being worse than the disease.  Using legal repression against prostitutes and the people in their lives strikes me as rather obviously being a case in point.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> When people start wheeling out the 'PM's of support' you know they're losing the argument.


When an anonymous coward uses the internet to publish lies about people he disagrees with, everyone knows what he is, and that he's a waste of oxygen


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> It has always been with us .



Nonsense.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> When an anonymous coward uses the internet to publish lies about people he disagrees with, one knows he's a coward, and a waste of oxygen



Like you misrepresenting the arguments on here?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> When an anonymous coward uses the internet to publish lies about people he disagrees with, one knows he's a coward, and a waste of oxygen



Do you genuinely believe that having your contact details on this site actually gives you more credibility than someone that doesn't??

Not only are you delusional but throughout this thread you have consistently misrepresented people, attributed a position to them that they haven't even stated and used labels like 'puritan' against people who oppose your views.

You really are a myopic idiot.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

*The (Swedish) law against purchasing sexual services*

"As a result of the new legislation, the sexworkers say it is now harder for them to assess the clients. The clients are more stressed and scared and negotiation outdoors must be done in a more rapid manner. The likelihood of ending up with a dangerous client is thereby greater."

ibid


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

What I know Grandma Death, is that you are just another anonymous internet coward, hiding behind his keyboard to spew lies about folks who offend his "morality".

Same old, same old, I guess.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> What I know Grandma Death, is that you are just another anonymous internet coward, hiding behind his keyboard to spew lies about folks who offend his "morality".



Being anonymous doesn't give me any less credibility than you. Rach18 used to trot the same old line out time and time again on the ME forums. Frankly its a boring line but hey ho if it makes you feel better....


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

*and more ...*



> The more vulnerable sexworkers seem to be the ones most negatively affected by the law. Women working on the streets in some bigger cities claim that there is now a greater percentage of ‘perverted’ customers and that the ’’nice and kind’’ customers have disappeared. A ‘perverted’ customer is someone who demands more violent forms of sex, sex with feces and urine and who is more prone to humiliate, degrade and violate the sexworker. He also more often refuses to use condoms.


Of course, this is obvious. The more the law attacks prostitutes, the more vulnerable they become.

Untethered has the 'decency' to recognise this; he argues that the measures will drive some women out of prostitution (to what is not clear); and that the overall result is positive, even if some desparately hard lives are made even worse.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death uses the internet to anonymously attack identifiable folks, to lie about them, to publicly smear them  just for the thought-crime of liberalism.

But it's OK, for Grandma Death is a moral man. He says.

But I only know him from that behaviour, so I see him as a bully and a liar.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Of course, this is obvious. The more the law attacks prostitutes, the more vulnerable they become.
> 
> Untethered has the 'decency' to recognise this; he argues that the measures will drive some women out of prostitution (to what is not clear); and that the overall result is positive, even if some desparately hrd lives are made even worse.



Not many people on here are arguing that prostitution should be further criminalised.  Only untethered in fact.

What is your point?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Grandma Death the internet to anonymously attack identifiable folks, to lie about them, to publicly smear them  just for the thought-crime of liberalism.
> 
> But it's OK, for Grandma Death is a moral man.



You're doing exactly the same.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Grandma Death the internet to anonymously attack identifiable folks, to lie about them, to publicly smear them  just for the thought-crime of liberalism.
> .



Jesus wept...you really are a mentalist....


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

*So did the Swedish approach work?*



> All of the authorities say that there is no evidence that prostitution was lower overall. Instead hidden prostitution had probably increased.
> ...
> The National Police Board has also found the law an obstacle to prosecuting profiteers who exploit the sexual labour of others. Earlier legal cases against such men could sometimes be supported by the testimonies of sex-buyers. But these men are no longer willing to assist, since they themselves are now guilty of committing a crime.
> 
> ibid


No, it hasn't.

There is no evidence that prostitution decreased. But there is evidence it has become a lot more dangerous.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

So you say Grandma Death. But I know you are a dishonest man, whoever you are.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> rubbish, completely and utterly wrong. both in where people work and in where people can be surveyed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The best data so far is that it's less than 0.21%

55,000 police officers directed to focus intensively for six months, raiding 1,500 brothels. 

You have any more recent and reasoned data?



Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

And obviously the police operation chose targets most likely to yield results.  So we can be confident the police figures indicate the maximum extent of the problem.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 23, 2009)

stephj said:


> Sure she's not faking it so the jerk fucks off quicker?


May be. If it's faked thoroughly, it doesn't really matter. I'd do robots if they were convincing enough. I mean, how would I know? Exactly. As for timing, well, I pay by the hour not the orgasm. If I finish too quick, the poor love might do herself an injury trying to get me off a second time. Pure compassion me. Compassion all over your face.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> The best data so far is that it's less than 0.21%
> 
> 55,000 police officers directed to focus intensively for six months, raiding 1,500 brothels.
> 
> You have any more recent and reasoned data?



yes, it has been stated sevral times on the thread, you choose to ignore it, or simlpy deny it.

Instead you quote the smallest figure you can find, and use it as if it as _the_ definitive fact.  Which is quite laughable.  Do you really think the police did such a marvellous job in this operaton that they found _every_ single instance of trafficking?  Surely not.  Which means that when you say it is 'that it's less than 0.21%' (itself a misrepresentation of the study you claim to quote) you are ignoring all the people the police didn't catch.  Given that clearnace rates rarely top 50% we can definitely double that figure. Many serious crimes get nowhere near 50% euther - 5% in the case of rape. That the figure is probably ten times the one you choose to use should be obvious.


----------



## agricola (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> The best data so far is that it's less than 0.21%
> 
> 55,000 police officers directed to focus intensively for six months, raiding 1,500 brothels.
> 
> ...



Are you talking about Pentameter 2 here?


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> agricola, no one has painted an entirely fact-free picture of jolly whores making a mint on their backs, whilst chortling at the fools working for the man in various low-paid jobs. No-one.
> 
> *We have pointed out that, if sex-work is necessarily the bleak hell the moralisers and prohibitionists proclaim, then there are plenty of McJobs out there, should sex-workers find them preferable. But it seems they do not.*
> 
> ...




It's a bit like the "drug war" debate really.

If a person wants to do it, should they be stopped?

But the whole problem is that the govt. supported by the media and the agenda driven have created a moral panic.

And, _just_ as in the "War on Drugs", this pushes the most vuneralble into the the hand of organised crime.

 The (wo)man they're looking for is not here.


Woof


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

do you think that the police caught everyone involved in trafficking in Pentameter jessiedog?


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> It's a bit like the "drug war" debate really.
> 
> If a person wants to do it, should they be stopped?
> 
> ...



Which is then used to provide statistics for the moral panic and further justify more attacks on sex workers, and round and round we go.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

> do you think that the police caught everyone involved in trafficking in Pentameter jessiedog?


What one is saying is that the police's best efforts, directed at the likeliest targets, indicate the government have been talking up the problem, grossly exaggerating its extent, to push through unnecessary and repressive legislation.

Is that really so very hard to believe?

the Register has just published an update on the unraveling of this attempted deceit ...


> The case against the government figures was made in coruscating depth this week by award-winning journalist Nick Davies. In two closely argued pieces in the Guardian, he showed first how the numbers had been inflated by press, charities and politicians – the press think of a number, charities quote it, ministers round it up – and second how a police operation (Pentameter 2), which had been hailed as a major success story in bringing traffickers to book had come up with just five individuals who met international definitions of this crime.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> I've shown it you thick lying fuckwit.



What did she do wrong though?

Seems she was actually convicted of helping willing peeps to make money by arranging a cab ride.


"Trafficking".

WTF!





Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> of course they should bne listened to - and they have been.  To pretend that its only you and the three punters on here who 'listen' to sex workers is rubbish.



How many have you personally listened to, belboid, thousands? Hundreds? Tens? A handful?


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> i dont claim to be listening to you, why would i listen to a rapist?



Bizzare!

And uncalled for.

Isn't that just one step down from calling someone a kiddie fiddler?



All sex is rape, then?

Or just all prostitution?


Or just....what?





Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

For the avoidance of doubt, she would have been convicted under UK law, regardless of which brothel the taxi went to.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

The argument is that all prostitution is rape, JD.

That's where belboid is coming from, I'm afraid.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> What did she do wrong though?
> 
> Seems she was actually convicted of helping willing peeps to make money by arranging a cab ride.
> 
> ...


yes, you are very confused.  If you read what I wrote you'll know I said I thought tjhe prosecution was (without knowing all the facts)  probably not in the publics, or the sex workers' best interests.  However it does show very clearly that what you and jonti said about how the law works was wrong.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

This bit, from theRegister piece, is chillingly accurate for liberals on these boards who've been lied about and reviled as promoting a "happy hooker" view of prostitution 





> Already, the line is shifting to imply that "the other side" support the indefensible, setting up the straw man of some liberal pro-prostitution lobby that does not care about the rights of abused women.


But we know what these people are like by now.  And at last the tide has turned against them.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> All sex is rape, then
> 
> Or just all prostitution?



dont be a moron. I am sure your memory is good enough to recall the context for my use of the word rapist in relation to jonti.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

This is what your party supports, belboid ... 





> Nicky Adams was clear: by imposing harsher and harsher regulation on sex work, the government was driving it further underground and forcing women to work in conditions that were more dangerous – not less. The government solution to an exaggerated problem will get women killed.


Stop being a tool of the real abusers, there's a good chap.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> dont be a moron. I am sure your memory is good enough to recall the context for my use of the word rapist in relation to jonti.


I'm a real person belboid. Your attack was filthy and indefensible.

I'm not an anonymous internet coward like some on this thread. You can find my phone number easily.  I've told you how.

Pick up the phone, I can call you back. Or are you too cowardly to face the person about whom you've made the most disgusting allegations?


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> dont be a moron. I am sure your memory is good enough to recall the context for my use of the word rapist in relation to jonti.



You were completely out of order and you should apologise and delete the post.....and you know it.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I'm saying you've lost your marbles because you're posting stuff like "Anyone that's on the breadline will have substance misuse, self medication problems. Not just sex workers", which is frankly, quite an odd thing to say.



And have you lost your marbles by thinking that anything other than a tiny minority of  prostitutes are in trouble, just because the only prostitutes you come into contact with is due to your employment in drug counselling?

I don't think you have as it happens.

I just think you're blinkered, have no perception outside of your own (rightful and good,) passion for your "clients" and are a wee bit dim.

Nothing wrong with that!

At least you're doing what you like, are helping vulnerable people and are keeping a wage coming in.

Just don't be so blinkered as to think that anything more than a tiny minority of prostitutes fit into the the stereotype of the ones that you come into contact with.

They don't.

And it comes across as silly that you think they do.

Especially when you woffle on about how selling sex is so different from selling any other kind of labour.

The vast majority of prostitutes disagree with you.

Of course, it's not "the same" as stacking shelves, just as cleaning toilets is not "the same" as stacking shelves.

It's just that selling sex is a lot more lucrative.

Live and let live, eh?

Keep up the good work, BTW, Blags. As I've posted many times, I greatly respect you for what you do in your daily work. Working with and supporting problematic drug users is important.

But don't think that this qualifies you to extrapolate in the way you are trying to do with respect to prostitution in general.

It doesen't.

It makes you look silly.

You personally interact with a tiny, tiny, _tiny_ minority.

Don't forget the data .... less than 0.21% need to be "rescued". And I'm glad that you get paid for helping some of those in that less than 0.21% - it's honourable work, IMO.


Blessings.




Woof


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> You were completely out of order and you should apologise and delete the post.....and you know it.



the only thing wrong with that post was that it gave a scumbag the excuse to avoid actually defending his reprehensible position.  for that reason, and that reason only, i'll edit it.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Just don't be so blinkered as to think that anything more than a tiny minority of prostitutes fit into the the stereotype of the ones that you come into contact with.
> 
> They don't.


have you _any_ evidence to back that up?  or will you just keep repeating it in the naive belief that that somehow makes it so?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

You really don't know, do you?


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I've already stated that I'm not talking about the UK. Over and over again.



Maybe you're on the wrong thread?



Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> the only thing wrong with that post was that it gave a scumbag the excuse to avoid actually defending his reprehensible position.  for that reason, and that reason only, i'll edit it.


My "reprehensible position" is that of perfectly ordinary liberalism.

And your position is of just another anonymous internet liar and slanderer; and one who stubbornly supports policies that will likely see vulnerable people get killed. You take party loyalty too far, belboid.  It is not me who is the enemy here.





> There is something familiar about the tide of misinformation which has swept through the subject of sex trafficking in the UK: it flows through exactly the same channels as the now notorious torrent about Saddam Hussein's weapons.
> 
> In the story of UK sex trafficking, the conclusions of academics who study the sex trade have been subjected to the same treatment as the restrained reports of intelligence analysts who studied Iraqi weapons – stripped of caution, stretched to their most alarming possible meaning and tossed into the public domain. There, they have been picked up by the media who have stretched them even further in stories which have then been treated as reliable sources by politicians, who in turn provided quotes for more misleading stories.
> 
> ...


----------



## agricola (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> This bit, from theRegister piece, is chillingly accurate for liberals on these boards who've been lied about and reviled as promoting a "happy hooker" view of prostitution.



Bollocks.  The lies on this thread have consistently been from your side of the argument - witness Dylans repeated and obviously wrong "trafficking is a myth" claim, or the repeated misrepresentation of the points of anyone who disagrees with you/dylans/jessiedog's position (as belboid said earlier, noone here apart from untethered and possibly grandma's death wants prostitution to be illegal), or indeed the twisting of nearly every piece of evidence on this thread from the OP onwards.   

The point about "happy hookers" - though this was so obvious I have no faith you will understand it even now - was made because Jessiedog, Dylans and now yourself had reduced their argument to state that the vast majority of prostitutes did so as a matter of personal choice in order to make personal money instead of doing more traditional jobs.  This view is, as I said earlier, extremely naive given that most sex-workers at that level will be under some compulsion to do so (be it drugs, physical compulsion or financial reasons more severe than "just making money").


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Actually I think it is typical.  Drug addiction and sexual abuse.  Of course I'm sure there are people it doesn't apply to, but they're in the minority IMO.



The minority of the ones that _you_ come into contact with?

Yes.

Of course, FFS!

You are a drug worker.



Nobody's denying that.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, the vermin who use prostitutes for instance.



I used to caretake a 46 year old guy who'd had cerebral palsy since birth.

Lift him in and out of his bed and his wheelchair. Wipe his shit, change his clothes. Feed him by hand and pour his water into him. Engage with him deeply (it took me ages to be able to quickly "intuit" what he was trying to spell out, pointing out with his nose, on the minature "blackboard" we used to communicte. I would affix the "wand" on his forehead so he could type the book he was writing (The Myth Of Altlanticism" - boy was he wrong, it was published about 3 weeks before the Oct 1987 crash) on the massive - home made - keyboard we had attatched to the PC. In the autumn, drive him to Beckley Heath so I could run him, at full speed, in his wheelchair, up and down the hills and dips of fallen-leaf-bestrewn spinney (yes, we crashed sometimes and tumbled - when we got it back together I got his "board" out and he "nosed": "Fucking brilliant! Faster next time"). Took him to restaurants in his chair with his plastic beaker to give him his wine (he preferred a red), and fed him with a spoon as he dribbled and spat down his chest (oh how we laughed together about other diners distast - we weren't hurting them). He had a favourite restaurant that knew him well, that was the best - in Kilburn I think - they valued him and would explain to the shocked onlookers that were not regulars.


And yes, I drove him to his regular prostitute, who understood him and loved him dearly, as did I. I carried him up the stairs and then waited in the car until she came down and asked me to get him. (I could never manage that kind of effort these days - this was in the mid 1980's).


He died in the early 1990's.


But, four shure, he was vermin!



Who are you?





Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

agricola said:


> The point about "happy hookers" - though this was so obvious I have no faith you will understand it even now - was made because Jessiedog, Dylans and now yourself had reduced their argument to state that the vast majority of prostitutes did so as a matter of personal choice in order to make personal money instead of doing more traditional jobs.  This view is, as I said earlier, extremely naive given that most sex-workers at that level will be under some compulsion to do so (be it drugs, physical compulsion or financial reasons more severe than "just making money").


Well, that's what they've found.  Yours and Blagsta's experience is different. That doesn't surprise me; Blagsta has disclosed he works with drug addicts, many of whom turn to prostitution to finance their habit; and you have disclosed you have worked as a police officer ~ again it is likely your experience will be with troubled individuals.

For my part, I've argued from the classical liberal position, as set out by that well known subversive rag, the Economist, and have pointed to and quoted arguments made by sex-workers themselves.

But mostly I've been at pains to expose government lies about the scale of the problem of sexual slavery in Britain.

In that context, Prostitution and trafficking – the anatomy of a moral panic  by Nick Davies is well worth a careful read.

Making public policy by stoking moral panics is not a sound way to go.  Not for sex-workers, and not for the folks who get to deal with the wreckage. 

Perhaps you mistake my position.  I am talking about the overall picture, one which has to include part-timers with a regular job and a few generous boyfriends.  But you talk about "sex-workers at that level" which indicates you are thinking of a subset of prostitutes, perhaps of the sort that you came into contact with through your job.

It is easy to understand that what you and Blagsta see is the worst of things; it would be unwise to think it represents the whole picture.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> the Swedish model has made women less safe. It's hardly a route one should go down. New Zealand is a much better proposal.



We agree on that. I posted about the NZ model earlier on this thread.




Woof


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2009)

all this talk about models is likely to lead this thread astray


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> The New Zealand model accepts and normalises the idea that men are entitled to rent women's bodies for sex. Society has a legitimate interest in saying that no, they don't. What's more, "normalising" the use of prostituted women will have the direct effect of increasing demand for prostitutes, which will, through the wonders of market capitalism create over a period a greater supply of prostitutes.
> 
> The answer to prostitution isn't nicer prostitution it's getting people out of prostitution. Normalising prostitution runs directly against that legitimate goal.



Either try to grow up, or just go ahead and join the "War on Drugs" as well.

Please.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm quite sure that persistent abusers of women will be willing to travel to the very Southern tip of Sweden, get a ferry to Eastern Europe, use a prostituted woman, then get a ferry back to Sweden and travel home on occasion. Those occasions will however be rare for all but the most dedicated abusers, because of the time, hassle and expense involved. If they have to go through that sort of ordeal every time they want to rent out a woman's body for sex, it will inevitably depress the regularity with which they do so.
> 
> And if most of them as bright as you are they will spend quite considerable amounts of time driving around looking for the non-existent Swedish border with Eastern Europe.



Oh God!







Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> jesus christ, what a fucking car crash this thread has beocme.



I disagree, frogs.

It's new data - and given the facts, it's worth the effort to expose the agenda that it so transparently perpetrated by those with said agenda.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> One of the factors in Birmingham that pushed some male drug users into sex work was being ASBO'd from the city centre so it became harder to fund habits through shoplifting.




I would suggest fixing poverty, addiction and government lies then, rather than picking on prostitution.


The (wo)man you're looking for is not here.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Hey I'm not the one living in the 'Happer Hooker' myth like world where prostitutes choose to sell themselves and they are all happy individuals. You my fucked up friend are the deluded one.



No.

The vast majority of sex workers are quite happily "under the radar" and don't give a shit about this debate.

They're quietly getting on with life and feeding their families.

If you find someone that was forced into prostitution and wants your help to get out of the game - steam on in.

Otherwise, mind your own business amd stop making it more difficult for the vast majority tma quiet living.

Of course, if you want to turn them in for "working illegally without a work permit", that's your perogative.



I'd rather give them support.




Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> crackdowns on punters mean that the women - who still rely upon those punters - actively help the men avoid any contact with the law.  It dirves them to less safe environments where violence is much much more likely to happen.  It is a story repeated _every_ time such crackdowns happen.



Obviously.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Just look at the "War on Drugs", peeps.





Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm unaware of any evidence that violence against prostitutes has increased since the Swedish law was introduced.
> 
> I am however aware that the law, the debate about it introduction and then its operation, has shifted social attitudes against the use of prostitutes in Sweden. In particular it has become markedly less accepted amongst young men. This, remember is the main goal of the legislation: To cut down on demand by increasing the social stigma against renting the bodies of prostituted women.



Yer.

But my children also get less food.

Is that the solution you want?

'Cos that's the effect.




Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

From Prostitution and trafficking – the anatomy of a moral panic ...


> Research published recently by Dr Nick Mai of London Metropolitan University, concludes that, contrary to public perception, the majority of migrant sex workers have chosen prostitution as a source of "dignified living conditions and to increase their opportunities for a better future while dramatically improving the living conditions of their families in the country of origin". After detailed interviews with 100 migrant sex workers in the UK, Mai found: "For the majority, working in the sex industry was a way to avoid the exploitative working conditions they had met in their previous non-sexual jobs."


Recommended reading.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> It assumes that prostitution takes place completely free of any social and economic context.



Is anything free of that?

Cleaning toilets 12 hours a day, six hours a week for US$300 a month (or much less,) is free of that?

Given the difference in income, I can fully understand the attraction of sex work.

Unless you don't want to do it, of course.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

untethered said:


> You get those rights when your work is 100% legal and doesn't do enormous social damage. Not otherwise.



And if the sentence for occasionally speeding in your car was hanging - and you got caught "once" speeding - you'd be OK with that?

Or don't you have a car?


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> More misrepresentation.



Blah. Blah. Blah.

You are trapped into a blinkered view due to the nature of your work, Blagsta.

I will assume that it's through benign motives, rather than a desire to retain your salary.


Woof


----------



## untethered (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> And if the sentence for occasionally speeding in your car was hanging - and you got caught "once" speeding - you'd be OK with that?



I don't support the death penalty.



Jessiedog said:


> Or don't you have a car?



Correct.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Nonsense.





Bonobos and everything since suggest it has always been with us.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> yes, it has been stated sevral times on the thread, you choose to ignore it, or simlpy deny it.




No.

Not at all. You are the one denying the data.





> Instead you quote the smallest figure you can find, and use it as if it as _the_ definitive fact.  Which is quite laughable.  Do you really think the police did such a marvellous job in this operaton that they found _every_ single instance of trafficking?  Surely not.  Which means that when you say it is 'that it's less than 0.21%' (itself a misrepresentation of the study you claim to quote) you are ignoring all the people the police didn't catch.  Given that clearnace rates rarely top 50% we can definitely double that figure. Many serious crimes get nowhere near 50% euther - 5% in the case of rape. That the figure is probably ten times the one you choose to use should be obvious.




Blah, blah, blah.


As I asked before, do you have any more recent, more valid data?


No.

Just moralistic rhetoric.

Same old same old.

The agenda you have is clear for all to read.

_It's morally wrong!!!1111!!!!_

Well, that may be your opinion and you may well be right about that.

But when it comes to _evidence_ about the degree of "force", your agenda has been exposed and your credibility is in tatters.

You bother yourself about a miniscule problem _in order to_ promote a wider moral and political agenda.

Sorry.

You've been found out.


Give it up and focus on the real issues of poverty.





Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

agricola said:


> Are you talking about Pentameter 2 here?



Yes.

I think that Pentameter 1 came up with a figure of 0.11%


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> do you think that the police caught everyone involved in trafficking in Pentameter jessiedog?



No.

If you have read my posts on this thread, you would have seen that I take into account that not every criminal is caught.

Did you not read those posts of mine? I've made exactly the same point, multiple times.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> Which is then used to provide statistics for the moral panic and further justify more attacks on sex workers, and round and round we go.



Yup.

It's Nu-Labour's modus operandi.



Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti]fw said:


> no it couldn't.  not unless the driver made her get in the car and forced her into the brothel.  don't talk shite.






			
				Jonti said:
			
		

> Yan Yang, a 50-year-old woman [was] gaoled for 10 months at Ipswich Crown Court this week. Her 'human trafficking' offence was to arrange a taxi from the local station for two young women who had come from London to work for her.
> 
> source





belboid;9857284]lol said:


> Oh look, another unbiased source.
> 
> Honestly Jonti, you have a go at Jazzz for his sources, then you post this?





belboid;9859662]hehehe said:


> I've shown [evidence I'm right] you thick lying fuckwit.



Wow. There's some really impressive passion there! And abuse, too 

So let's see what the statute actually says, shall we?  This from the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ...





> *58 Trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation*
> 
> (1) A person commits an offence if he intentionally arranges or facilitates travel within the United Kingdom by another person (B) and either—
> 
> ...



The position is as I said.  If you give a prostitute a lift to her place of work, you are guilty of trafficking under this statute.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> yes, you are very confused.  If you read what I wrote you'll know I said I thought tjhe prosecution was (without knowing all the facts)  probably not in the publics, or the sex workers' best interests.  However it does show very clearly that what you and jonti said about how the law works was wrong.



Belboid.

Give it up.

You are wrong on this as has been proven.

You discredit yourself.

The law is cast broad and wide to ensure that any kind of "trafficker" or "terrorist" will be brought to book under this kind of legislation.

Wake up!



The UK used to lead the world in producing clearly defined, well written and well debated before promulgation, "law". Then came Nu-Labour (Thatcher probably had a hand in the incubation,) and we got 3,000 new "criminal" offences inside of a decade.

And few of them have any effect other than the further subjugation of the poor.




Woof


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> No.
> 
> Not at all. You are the one denying the data.


where?  show me one place where i have _denied_ any data?  what i have done consistently is state that all the data is flawed and stated reasons why.  you simply reject and then [mis]quote one figure, and simply repeat it without any contemplation of why you think it is the most accurate (other than it suits your own opiinion)


> As I asked before, do you have any more recent, more valid data?


i quoted various figures earlier i nthe thread, you rejected them out of hand. 



> Just moralistic rhetoric.


mm, you dont seem to understand what 'moral' actually means, as i was simply discussing statistics and reportng thereof..  there really is no morality involved at all.  perhaps you couldn't deal ith the implications of what i said tho, so choose to ignore it.



> Same old same old.
> 
> The agenda you have is clear for all to read.
> 
> _It's morally wrong!!!1111!!!!_


yes, of course thats it, despite stating various times that i think the trafficking bill itself is actually shite, that sex workers should have proper workers' rights etc etc. it has nothing to do with morality, its about reducing violence against, and abuse of, women. it is to do with giving sex workers as many choices about staying in or getting out of the industry as possible.  but dont bother dealing with actual facts, just go on an 'anti-moralist' crusade. 



> But when it comes to _evidence_ about the degree of "force", your agenda has been exposed and your credibility is in tatters.


not by someone who consistently makes up my opinion it hasn't.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 23, 2009)

Reclaim the night, Evil Kea and the Poppy Project, Harriet Harmen, Jaqui Smith et al, they are all lying scum who are motivated by a indefensible moralistic position and cover this up with lies, smears and inflated statistics. What really pisses me off is that they have a complete inabilty to understand the motivations of those working in the sex trade. Hardly surprising when they refuse to listen to sex workers.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> No.
> 
> If you have read my posts on this thread, you would have seen that I take into account that not every criminal is caught.
> 
> Did you not read those posts of mine? I've made exactly the same point, multiple times.


so, you agree that the figures you repeatedly quote as FACT, are actually wrong, and yet you keep repeating them, insisting they are FACTS.

You realise this means you've just admitted to lying.  Why, therefore, should 
anyone believe anything else you say?


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

TopCat said:


> Reclaim the night, Evil Kea and the Poppy Project, Harriet Harmen, Jaqui Smith et al, they are all lying scum who are motivated by a indefensible moralistic position and cover this up with lies, smears and inflated statistics. What really pisses me off is that they have a complete inabilty to understand the motivations of those working in the sex trade. Hardly surprising when they refuse to listen to sex workers.



pervert, paedophile, rapist, pimp, trafficker, thicko, moron, idiot, evil scum, buyer of flesh, criminal, misogynist, whoremonger, brothel creeper, slave owner


( sorry I thought I woulld get in first with the abuse before anyone else from the "anti-trafficking" mafia did)


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> You are wrong on this as has been proven.


oh dear, you don't actually understand what 'proved' means, do you?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

agricola said:


> Bollocks.  The lies on this thread have consistently been from your side of the argument - witness Dylans repeated and obviously wrong "trafficking is a myth" claim, or the repeated misrepresentation of the points of anyone who disagrees with you/dylans/jessiedog's position (as belboid said earlier, noone here apart from untethered and possibly grandma's death wants prostitution to be illegal).



I'd rather a world where it didn't exist but I in no way see increased prohibition as the answer....for the record.

On a side note you are of course completely right-the 'other side' have been pretty much not misrepresenting mine and other views they've also attributed positions from 'this side' that do not even exist.

Dylans contributions particularly are a prime example of this.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> dont be a moron. I am sure your memory is good enough to recall the context for my use of the word rapist in relation to jonti.




Yes I do.



That's what confuses me.

I was sure that a kiddie fiddler like yourself (not that I have any _evidence_ for that, of course,) calling someone else a rapist on a thread like this one (without any evidence whatsoever, of course,) must be pure irony.

Maybe I was wrong and there is no irony.

But it certainly doesn't seem appropriate, or germaine to the debate.




Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> I used to caretake a 46 year old guy who'd had cerebral palsy since birth.
> 
> Lift him in and out of his bed and his wheelchair. Wipe his shit, change his clothes. Feed him by hand and pour his water into him. Engage with him deeply (it took me ages to be able to quickly "intuit" what he was trying to spell out, pointing out with his nose, on the minature "blackboard" we used to communicte. I would affix the "wand" on his forehead so he could type the book he was writing (The Myth Of Altlanticism" - boy was he wrong, it was published about 3 weeks before the Oct 1987 crash) on the massive - home made - keyboard we had attatched to the PC. In the autumn, drive him to Beckley Heath so I could run him, at full speed, in his wheelchair, up and down the hills and dips of fallen-leaf-bestrewn spinney (yes, we crashed sometimes and tumbled - when we got it back together I got his "board" out and he "nosed": "Fucking brilliant! Faster next time"). Took him to restaurants in his chair with his plastic beaker to give him his wine (he preferred a red), and fed him with a spoon as he dribbled and spat down his chest (oh how we laughed together about other diners distast - we weren't hurting them). He had a favourite restaurant that knew him well, that was the best - in Kilburn I think - they valued him and would explain to the shocked onlookers that were not regulars.
> 
> ...



Whilst I think its wrong to label all men who use prostitutes as 'vermin' I think its equally dispicable to use disability in the manner you have Jessiedog-infact its a fucking insult to those who are disabled and choose not to use the services of a prostitute.


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Dylans contributions particularly are a prime example of this.



How would you know when you boast that you don't read my posts?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> The vast majority of sex workers are quite happily "under the radar" and don't give a shit about this debate.



Do you have the evidence of this beyond anectodal evidence that is?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> How would you know when you boast that you don't read my posts?




I was reading them up to the point where you accused me of arrogance for not qualifying a statement-then laughed my ass off when you did the very same thing in the same post. I realised then you were a complete tool and not worth engaging with.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Whilst I think its wrong to label all men who use prostitutes as 'vermin' I think its equally dispicable to use disability in the manner you have Jessiedog-infact its a fucking insult to those who are disabled and choose not to use the services of a prostitute.



I think using a geniune personal experience is perfectly legitimate to be fair. If it was extraploted to disabled people in general then there would be some merit to your criticism, but I think you would need to be more specific to make this point stick.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Yes I do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



wel, you clearly dont recall or understand, but what the hell, that's been dealt with now, and is not really any conern of yours either.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> have you _any_ evidence to back that up?  or will you just keep repeating it in the naive belief that that somehow makes it so?



Well.

On a personal, anecdodal, level (which carries no value statistically,) I have known and engaged with many hundreds of prostitutes over the last 15 years, dozens of whom have been personal friends and more than a dozen who have been far more than casual friends - and none of whom I've had sex with.

But other than the _best evidence_ we have to date that less than 0.21% of prostitutes in the UK have any problem with their profession, I have no data.

Do you have any data that contradicts these most recent figures?

How many of you friends are prostitutes?

Or is it just that you have an agenda?





Woof


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> But other than the _best evidence_ we have to date that less than 0.21% of prostitutes in the UK have any problem with their profession, I have no data.



why is this 'the best data we have'?  because it fits with your view (or agenda if you prefer)?  you have offered no reason.  and yet you insist it is and completely ignore every other example.  i have stated why i think this figure is wrong, and why, using a range of studies, all quoted earlier, one can make a more reasonable estimation.

yes, i do have an 'agenda' i guess, i've said it umpteen times, you ignore that too because it doesn't fit with your stereotype.  sorry about that, but it aint my problem.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> But my children also get less food.



Your children? Are you speaking on behalf of prostitutes now? I mean, given that you think that it's a job like any other, I presume you'd have no problem sucking off a miserable oddball or two for a few quid yourself?

As for your dead friend, assuming he existed and I have to say that I'm not predisposed to take your word for it, he had some excuse. You don't.

Of course I "have an agenda", everyone has an agenda. But not all of us have an agenda dictated by our taste for exploiting desperate women.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> My "reprehensible position" is that of perfectly ordinary liberalism.







> There is something familiar about the tide of misinformation which has swept through the subject of sex trafficking in the UK: it flows through exactly the same channels as the now notorious torrent about Saddam Hussein's weapons.
> 
> In the story of UK sex trafficking, the conclusions of academics who study the sex trade have been subjected to the same treatment as the restrained reports of intelligence analysts who studied Iraqi weapons – stripped of caution, stretched to their most alarming possible meaning and tossed into the public domain. There, they have been picked up by the media who have stretched them even further in stories which have then been treated as reliable sources by politicians, who in turn provided quotes for more misleading stories.
> 
> In both cases, the cycle has been driven by political opportunists and interest groups in pursuit of an agenda. In the case of sex trafficking, the role of the neo-conservatives and Iraqi exiles has been played by an unlikely union of evangelical Christians with feminist campaigners, who pursued the trafficking tale to secure their greater goal, not of regime change, but of legal change to abolish all prostitution. The sex trafficking story is a model of misinformation. It began to take shape in the mid 1990s, when the collapse of economies in the old Warsaw Pact countries saw the working flats of London flooded with young women from eastern Europe. Soon, there were rumours and media reports that attached a new word to these women. They had been "trafficked".




This is the truth.


Read it and weep.





Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

agricola said:


> Bollocks.  The lies on this thread have consistently been from your side of the argument - witness Dylans repeated and obviously wrong "trafficking is a myth" claim, or the repeated misrepresentation of the points of anyone who disagrees with you/dylans/jessiedog's position (as belboid said earlier, noone here apart from untethered and possibly grandma's death wants prostitution to be illegal), or indeed the twisting of nearly every piece of evidence on this thread from the OP onwards.
> 
> The point about "happy hookers" - though this was so obvious I have no faith you will understand it even now - was made because Jessiedog, Dylans and now yourself had reduced their argument to state that the vast majority of prostitutes did so as a matter of personal choice in order to make personal money instead of doing more traditional jobs.  This view is, as I said earlier, extremely naive given that most sex-workers at that level will be under some compulsion to do so (be it drugs, physical compulsion or financial reasons more severe than "just making money").




The data says that less than 0.21% have a problem.


The rest are _definately_ "coerced" by, as you put it, _"financial reasons"_.


Or do you lack complete faith in the 55,000 of your colleages?


Should we get our tinfoil hats out about the cops?



Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> But other than the _best evidence_ we have to date that less than 0.21% of prostitutes in the UK have any problem with their profession, I have no data.



But the game of data ping pong could be played all day and night. I've read loads of research from the feminist  Dr Melissa Farley-some of her research has been called into question and I'm sure the study quoted in the OP could be questionable as well?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> pervert, paedophile, rapist, pimp, trafficker, thicko, moron, idiot, evil scum, buyer of flesh, criminal, misogynist, whoremonger, brothel creeper, slave owner
> 
> 
> ( sorry I thought I woulld get in first with the abuse before anyone else from the "anti-trafficking" mafia did)



The accusations of being punters, rapists and so on in this rather interesting thread are a new low for these boards and illuminating of those who make them.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Whilst I think its wrong to label all men who use prostitutes as 'vermin' I think its equally dispicable to use disability in the manner you have Jessiedog-infact its a fucking insult to those who are disabled and choose not to use the services of a prostitute.



What's despicable? A guy with cerebral palsy desired sexual release, but given his illness, the chances of him going to a wine bar and meeting a nice legal secretary, were pretty close to zero.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I am talking about the overall picture, one which has to include part-timers with a regular job and a few generous boyfriends.  But you talk about "sex-workers at that level" which indicates you are thinking of a subset of prostitutes, perhaps of the sort that you came into contact with through your job.




Prezactly!





> It is easy to understand that what you and Blagsta see is the worst of things; it would be unwise to think it represents the whole picture.



Are we getting through yet?


Woof


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 23, 2009)

Hell, the Danish govt even picks up the tab for prostitutes to provide services to disabled people. 

ie, Scandinavians.  And we all know how socially advanced they are.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1537366.html


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 23, 2009)

And now, the Belgians are doing it. 

http://current.com/13d7m4c


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> all this talk about models is likely to lead this thread astray




Heh!


Word.




Where I live, we now have what the media call "pseudo models". Google it, it's a funny, non-issue, but was "big" in the local print media a couple of months ago (probably 'cos the media were paid to create the controvesy and promote the "pseudo models").


Get real peeps!


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> so, you agree that the figures you repeatedly quote as FACT, are actually wrong, and yet you keep repeating them, insisting they are FACTS.
> 
> You realise this means you've just admitted to lying.  Why, therefore, should
> anyone believe anything else you say?



No.

What I'm saying is that the best and latest data available suggests that "trafficking" (including those who are willingly trafficked,) amounts to 0.21% of prostitution in the UK.

Do you have any more recent data?


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> pervert, paedophile, rapist, pimp, trafficker, thicko, moron, idiot, evil scum, buyer of flesh, criminal, misogynist, whoremonger, brothel creeper, slave owner
> 
> 
> ( sorry I thought I woulld get in first with the abuse before anyone else from the "anti-trafficking" mafia did)



OMG!

Ban it now.

Think of the children you cold hearted bastards!!!111!





Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

belboid said:


> oh dear, you don't actually understand what 'proved' means, do you?



Fair enough.

Nothing is _ever_ "proven".

The best data yet is in though.

If any, credible, future studies come in with a greater than 0.21% incidence, I'm sure you'll be the first to post them here.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Whilst I think its wrong to label all men who use prostitutes as 'vermin' I think its equally dispicable to use disability in the manner you have Jessiedog-infact its a fucking insult to those who are disabled and choose not to use the services of a prostitute.



As it happens, my friend, John, disagreed with you about that.

But then, he's dead.




Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Do you have the evidence of this beyond anectodal evidence that is?





Yes.

It's called less than 0.21%.

Do you have any more recent data that contradicts this?

No you don't. This is the most recent data.

Maybe in future you'll find something to contradict it.

Who knows, maybe the real number is 0.41 percent.

Either way, one is too many.



Woof


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Whilst I think its wrong to label all men who use prostitutes as 'vermin' I think its equally dispicable to use disability in the manner you have Jessiedog-infact its a fucking insult to those who are disabled and choose not to use the services of a prostitute.



Most people of a certain age desire - one might go so far as to say need - sex. That will include most disabled people. But given how our society is, and depending on the diability, most disabled people won't be able to compete in the sexual free for all that is the mechanism whereby most able bodied people come to be with a partner.

Your post seems to imply that disabled people who would not choose to use the services of prostitutes, are somehow more moral, or better in some way, than those who do. The alternative could be that they've bought into a societal notion that because they are disabled in body, they aren't worthy for consideration in the human sexual interplay. Due to societal pressure, they may simply have given up hope on ever taking part in this most basic and elementary of human activities.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Your children? Are you speaking on behalf of prostitutes now? I mean, given that you think that it's a job like any other, I presume you'd have no problem sucking off a miserable oddball or two for a few quid yourself?
> 
> As for your dead friend, assuming he existed and I have to say that I'm not predisposed to take your word for it, he had some excuse. You don't.
> 
> Of course I "have an agenda", everyone has an agenda. But not all of us have an agenda dictated by our taste for exploiting desperate women.





Check my posts on this thread about my personal involvement in prostitution.


Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

TopCat said:


> The accusations of being punters, rapists and so on in this rather interesting thread are a new low for these boards and illuminating of those who make them.




The accusations of prohibitionists and puritans and so on in this rather interesting thread are a new low for these boards and illuminating of those who make them.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What's despicable?



Not the act of him doing it....



> A guy with cerebral palsy desired sexual release, but given his illness, the chances of him going to a wine bar and meeting a nice legal secretary, were pretty close to zero.



...see above.


----------



## subversplat (Oct 23, 2009)

So does this mean that the recent government ad campaign that basically said "If you're banging a foreign pro you're a RAPIST!" was factually inaccurate? Not that that would bother the anti-prostitution lobby.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> But the game of data ping pong could be played all day and night. I've read loads of research from the feminist  Dr Melissa Farley-some of her research has been called into question and I'm sure the study quoted in the OP could be questionable as well?



But surely the best way forward is to _try_ and _objectively_ assess the data, rather than indulging in the lies and moral bullshit that currently surrounds the issue of prostitution that has now been exposed?

The evidence suggests that the emperor no longer has any clothes on this one.

The game is up.


Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Most people of a certain age desire - one might go so far as to say need - sex. That will include most disabled people. But given how our society is, and depending on the diability, most disabled people won't be able to compete in the sexual free for all that is the mechanism whereby most able bodied people come to be with a partner.
> 
> Your post seems to imply that disabled people who would not choose to use the services of prostitutes, are somehow more moral, or better in some way, than those who do. The alternative could be that they've bought into a societal notion that because they are disabled in body, they aren't worthy for consideration in the human sexual interplay. Due to societal pressure, they may simply have given up hope on ever taking part in this most basic and elementary of human activities.



You're reading into my post something thats not there JC.

I do however find it tiresome that the example of the disabled individual/sad lonely etc punter is often wheeled out in debates like this often to take the heat of responsibility off punters who on the whole don't give a shit whether their prostitiute is a junkie, pimped, abused etc etc. Whilst I accept that punters are not all the same I do find it slightly insulting to disabled people who choose not to pay for sex that examples like this are thrown into the mix.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> But surely the best way forward is to _try_ and _objectively_ assess the data, rather than indulging in the lies and moral bullshit that currently surrounds the issue of prostitution that has now been exposed?



I would suggest with such a polarised debate like this its impossible to be objective as nice as your suggestion sounds.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> For my part, I've argued from the classical liberal position, as set out by that well known subversive rag, the Economist, and have pointed to and quoted arguments made by sex-workers themselves.
> .



It's hardly surprising that a magazine devoted to Liberal capitalist ideology is going to argue that the commodification of everything is unproblematic is it.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 23, 2009)

subversplat said:


> So does this mean that the recent government ad campaign that basically said "If you're banging a foreign pro you're a RAPIST!" was factually inaccurate? Not that that would bother the anti-prostitution lobby.



The latest data is that 80% of prostitutes in the UK are "foreign".

And that 99.97% of _all_ prostitutes in the UK are not being forced into prostitution, but rather are willing participants.

The difference between the governement "line" and reality is, obviously, more than substantial.

Such is life when govts. drop evidence-based reality and force through agenda driven laws.

What's new?




Woof


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> Nothing is _ever_ "proven".
> 
> ...



intreresting that you choose to return to the figure of 0.21% even tho this is a reply to a completely differnt point!  I can only surmise you have no way of answering said other points.  as usual.  nor will you explain why yiou insist that figures definitively is the best figure.  your refusal to do so can only lead one to further surmise that you choose it because it suits your argument.  

and let us remind ourselves what you have been repeatedly saying re the figure:



Jessiedog said:


> The facts are in - it's less than 0.21%.



not 'the best estimate which may be a bit low, but it wont be more than double it' but FACT.  Even tho you also say you know that the figure isn't true, it's a FACT, apparently.  That makes me somewhat dubious, to say the least, of your ability to critically and impassionately analyse data.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> The accusations of prohibitionists and puritans and so on in this rather interesting thread are a new low for these boards and illuminating of those who make them.



You have behaved like an unmitigated cunt in my opinion.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> But surely the best way forward is to _try_ and _objectively_ assess the data, rather than indulging in the lies and moral bullshit that currently surrounds the issue of prostitution that has now been exposed?



oh the irony!


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

TopCat said:


> You have behaved like an unmitigated cunt in my opinion.



I dont really give a shit about your opinion to be honest you fucking buffoon. Your a half witted troll on most occasions truth be known.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

TopCat said:


> The accusations of being punters, rapists and so on in this rather interesting thread are a new low for these boards and illuminating of those who make them.



The issue here is that Jonti et al completely the deny the reality of sex work.  Instead preferring to misrepresent people who, while agreeing that sex workers should have full employment rights and that criminalisation is harmful, are able to think critically about the realities of sex work, as actually wanting to criminalise it.

Jonti's debating tactic is completely dishonest and his posting punter's views as unbiased sources on the realities of the trade speaks volumes IMO.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> The issue here is that Jonti et al completely the deny the reality of sex work.  Instead preferring to misrepresent people who, while agreeing that sex workers should have full employment rights and that criminalisation is harmful, are able to think critically about the realities of sex work, as actually wanting to criminalise it.
> 
> Jonti's debating tactic is completely dishonest and his posting punter's views as unbiased sources on the realities of the trade speaks volumes IMO.



You remind me of police persons. Your experience working with chaotic drug users can't be extrapolated to the wider populace. Your demands to know if someone had paid for sex demeaned yourself and your argument. I was a bit surprised to be honest.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

TopCat said:


> You remind me of police persons. Your experience working with chaotic drug users can't be extrapolated to the wider populace. Your demands to know if someone had paid for sex demeaned yourself and your argument. I was a bit surprised to be honest.



I was curious as to why Jonti was so keen to deny the reality of sex work and so keen to stress it was a free choice.  I'm also curious as to why he chooses to use punter's sites to back up his views.

Btw, your experience of sex workers (presumably the women who funded CW at the beginning) can't be extrapolated either.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I was curious as to why Jonti was so keen to deny the reality of sex work and so keen to stress it was a free choice.  I'm also curious as to why he chooses to use punter's sites to back up his views.
> 
> Btw, your experience of sex workers (presumably the women who funded CW at the beginning) can't be extrapolated either.



Don't presume eh? Too much of that sort of thing on this thread.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

TopCat said:


> You remind me of police persons. Your experience working with chaotic drug users can't be extrapolated to the wider populace. Your demands to know if someone had paid for sex demeaned yourself and your argument. I was a bit surprised to be honest.



Asking if someones a punter is perfectly legitimate fool-it lends itself to a perceived bias....or did you miss that one....


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

TopCat said:


> Don't presume eh? Too much of that sort of thing on this thread.



Indeed...accusing your opponents as being puritans case in point.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Asking if someones a punter is perfectly legitimate fool-it lends itself to a perceived bias....or did you miss that one....



You were behaving like a shit.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

TopCat said:


> You were behaving like a shit.



...oh do fuck off. Accusing Blagsta views of being coloured by his own experiences is no fucking different to asking if a poster is a punter you absolute moron.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...oh do fuck off. Accusing Blagsta views of being coloured by his own experiences is no fucking different to asking if a poster is a punter you absolute moron.



Blagsta kept _quoting_ his experience as a drugs worker. I think his behaviour on this thread is a bit misguided and out of character really.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

TopCat said:


> Blagsta kept _quoting_ his experience as a drugs worker. I think his behaviour on this thread is a bit misguided and out of character really.



Yes and _certain_ posters kept accusing him of  (directly or indirectly) having his own agenda because of that. That isn't any different to finding out if people are punters. Hats off to Jessiedog who's been the only one who's been honest fair play.

You may perceive me as being unreasonable but I think my behaviour isn't any different to those who have accused me of being a puritan or a prohibitionist-neither of which I am by the way.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Yes and _certain_ posters kept accusing him of  (directly or indirectly) having his own agenda because of that. That isn't any different to finding out if people are punters. Hats off to Jessiedog who's been the only one who's been honest fair play.
> 
> You may perceive me as being unreasonable but I think my behaviour isn't any different to those who have accused me of being a puritan or a prohibitionist-neither of which I am by the way.



You were nasty. Not unreasonable.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

You bullied; and then invented stuff.

Very moral, that


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> You bullied; and then invented stuff.
> 
> Very moral, that



You've been inventing stuff all over this thread.  You always do.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

TopCat said:


> You were nasty. Not unreasonable.




....you obviously haven't even read this thread. Not even a comment on posts from dylans or Jonti.....


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

=Grandma Death said:
			
		

> I'd rather a world where it didn't exist but I in no way see increased prohibition as the answer....for the record.


Good; so everyone's agreed 


Grandma Death said:


> Whilst I think its wrong to label all men who use prostitutes as 'vermin' I think its equally dispicable to use disability in the manner you have Jessiedog-infact its a fucking insult to those who are disabled and choose not to use the services of a prostitute.


Piss off y'fookin' moran


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You've been inventing stuff all over this thread.  You always do.


Oh rly?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ....you obviously haven't even read this thread.



I read the whole thing in one go. There is plenty of dishonesty, a huge amount of hypocrisy and a whole load of abuse. You come out of it the worst by far.
Yuk.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Fuck.

Carousel must have been second; I'm an also ran


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

TopCat said:


> I read the whole thing in one go. There is plenty of dishonesty, a huge amount of hypocrisy and a whole load of abuse. You come out of it the worst by far.
> Yuk.



Post 818.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Do you have the evidence of this beyond anectodal evidence that is?





> Research published recently by Dr Nick Mai of London Metropolitan University, concludes that, contrary to public perception, the majority of migrant sex workers have chosen prostitution as a source of "dignified living conditions and to increase their opportunities for a better future while dramatically improving the living conditions of their families in the country of origin". After detailed interviews with 100 migrant sex workers in the UK, Mai found: "For the majority, working in the sex industry was a way to avoid the exploitative working conditions they had met in their previous non-sexual jobs."


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


>




100 migrant workers. God thats a detailed study.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> ... Where I live, we now have what the media call "pseudo models". Google it, it's a funny, non-issue, but was "big" in the local print media a couple of months ago (probably 'cos the media were paid to create the controvesy and promote the "pseudo models") ...


Ahh, yes.

Sexual display by young female hominids. A controversial subject, that.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> 100 migrant workers. God thats a detailed study.


It's as good as it gets right now.

It's not an insignificant sample.  Did you ever read the Shere Hite interviews?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> It's not an insignificant sample.  Did you ever read the Shere Hite interviews?



No...have you ever read any of Dr Melissa Farleys interviews/papers.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/winter05/stress.html

No; does she claim that the UL is in the middle of a crisis of sex slavery?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

subversplat said:


> So does this mean that the recent government ad campaign that basically said "If you're banging a foreign pro you're a RAPIST!" was factually inaccurate? Not that that would bother the anti-prostitution lobby.


Yes, it does.

No, it won't.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2009)

"A minority of interviewees felt that they had been forced to
sell sex and that they had been exploited. Only a very small
minority of interviewees were deceived and forced into
selling sex in circumstances within which they felt they had
no share of control or consent. In the majority of the cases
encountered, interviewees were aware that they would be
selling sex, but not of the exploitative working conditions
that they were required to endure, which led them to find
ways to escape through the co-operation of clients, colleagues
and, especially if documented or not intending to
stay in the UK, the Police."

there are no specific figures quoted for the 'minority' and 'small minority', but in general academic usage they would mean 2-10%, possibly a little more, and 10-49%.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

TopCat said:


> You have behaved like an unmitigated cunt in my opinion.


And mine.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Oh rly?



Yep.  I've pointed it out to you loads as well.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

> _certain_ posters kept accusing him of  (directly or indirectly) having his own agenda because of [being a drugs worker]. That isn't any different to finding out if people are punters.


So you don't see the difference between acknowledging what a person has said about themselves, and anonymously bullying someone to reveal personal information?

That's very ... interesting.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Yep.  I've pointed it out to you loads as well.


So you say; but I think you need a holiday.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> So you say; but I think you need a holiday.



wtf?


----------



## dylans (Oct 23, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Most people of a certain age desire - one might go so far as to say need - sex. That will include most disabled people. But given how our society is, and depending on the diability, most disabled people won't be able to compete in the sexual free for all that is the mechanism whereby most able bodied people come to be with a partner.
> 
> Y*our post seems to imply that disabled people who would not choose to use the services of prostitutes, are somehow more moral, or better in some way, than those who do. *The alternative could be that they've bought into a societal notion that because they are disabled in body, they aren't worthy for consideration in the human sexual interplay. Due to societal pressure, they may simply have given up hope on ever taking part in this most basic and elementary of human activities.



Hey it's up to them .Whatever lights their candle. Morals don't come into it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> Hey it's up to them .Whatever lights their candle. Morals don't come into it.



I'd agree, but the post I was responding to, seemed to imply that they do.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 23, 2009)

I'm not sure I agree. I feel indignant when I'm accused of promoting prostitution.  I just want the law off these women's backs.

I really can't say I approve. It's problematic for me.  How should one fuck a prostitute?  Selfish fucking is boring, but one should be considerate to one's hired hands, and get on with the job.

It's all very confusing


----------



## subversplat (Oct 24, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Yes, it does.
> 
> No, it won't.


Ah good stuff. For anyone that doesn't remember, here it is:

http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/graphics/humantrafficking003a.jpg

Linked rather than posted for decorum, or something


----------



## Jonti (Oct 24, 2009)

Nice.

As if your average punter needs encouragement to grass up slavery! FFS, what universe, what age do these "political masters" live? Whatever, it is clear these people are too stupid for the common good.

Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: In a sufficiently complex scenario, stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 24, 2009)

belboid said:


> intreresting that you choose to return to the figure of 0.21% even tho this is a reply to a completely differnt point!  I can only surmise you have no way of answering said other points.  as usual.  nor will you explain why yiou insist that figures definitively is the best figure.  your refusal to do so can only lead one to further surmise that you choose it because it suits your argument.
> 
> and let us remind ourselves what you have been repeatedly saying re the figure:
> 
> ...




The point being made, is that even if the true figure is indeed double (i.e. 0.42%,) it still makes a complete mockery of the wholly exaggerated _lies_ that have hitherto been spread around by those (such as the Poppy Project,) who have vested financial and political interests in pushing their lies. They spread these lies because their agenda is to "end" prostitution, and to do so by conning the govt. (not that Harman and Smith needed much encouragement,) into trying to legislate it out of existance.

Very, very nasty people.

But the game is up, they've been found out and we can now move on and stop worrying that anything other than a miniscule minority of sex workers are forced into the profession.

They actually found a total of eleven that needed rescuing.

And meanwhile, the Poppy Project has received GBP 6,000,000 of taxpayers money to propogate their lies.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 24, 2009)

subversplat said:


> Ah good stuff. For anyone that doesn't remember, here it is:
> 
> http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/graphics/humantrafficking003a.jpg
> 
> Linked rather than posted for decorum, or something




Heh!


I remember some twat on CiF arguing that if a prostitute wasn't British, then it was a sign that they were trafficked.

FFS!



Some 80% of UK prostitutes are not British.




Woof


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 24, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Heh!
> 
> 
> I remember some twat on CiF arguing that if a prostitute wasn't British, then it was a sign that they were trafficked.



What is the BNP stance on this? British shags for British punters?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2009)

I've posted a poll in General btw ...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2009)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=306323


----------



## belboid (Oct 24, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> The point being made, is that even if the true figure is indeed double (i.e. 0.42%,) it still makes a complete mockery of the wholly exaggerated _lies_


no, the point being made is that you are a liar who is wholly ignorant of the realities of sex work in the uk.  you have lied throughout thyis thread, aqnd said not one thing of note to back up your aguments.  scream and shout all yopu like, but it will not change the fact that you have been shown clearly to be a wholly disingenuous shit willing to defend anyone and anything. 

you live in a fantasy world.


----------



## belboid (Oct 24, 2009)

that you have had to be FORCED to sayu 'ooh, i suppose it may just be double the lowest figure it could possibly be' shows clearly to anyone (apart from other punters loking for an excuse) that you are lying and your 'concern' dfor sex workers is totally self centred.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 24, 2009)

I've lived next to a suburban brothel and found it quite an education in terms of how the business works. Most of the girls were east europeans who worked one or two shifts a week (lunch time and commuter time - no late night stuff). A very few liked the money and so worked a little more but mostly it was about paying the rent and/or tutition fees and getting on with their lives.

Might be different in town, probably more full time workers but, generally, my impression is they only work full time if they really like the money, have a plan or a drug problem.

The most interesting person I knew there was the old-school, hard as nails 'receptionist' woman. Always out the back having a fag and on the phone - fascinating sounding family.

The girls were all well in control of their lives and their boyfriends would not have a clue what they did for a few hours a week.


----------



## dylans (Oct 24, 2009)

belboid said:


> no, the point being made is that you are a liar who is wholly ignorant of the realities of sex work in the uk.  you have lied throughout thyis thread, aqnd said not one thing of note to back up your aguments.  scream and shout all yopu like, but it will not change the fact that you have been shown clearly to be a wholly disingenuous shit willing to defend anyone and anything.
> 
> you live in a fantasy world.



No you do. Many of us on this thread have personal experience of the real conditions of sex workers and have posted about those experiences. You have chosen to either belittle those experiences or you have ignored them completely. For the record, I am married with a child. I am not a "punter looking for an excuse" as you imply.  I have known many sex workers as platonic friends of both myself and of my wife for over a decade. I feel privileged to have learnt so much about their lives. 

As a result I have seen the misery and abuse that many of them have suffered over the past few years as a direct result of the "victim" to be "rescued" mentality of the anti trafficking lobby. I have had girls run into my home to avoid "rescues" from NGOS such as ECPAT. I have seen girls robbed of all their possessions by cops looking for kickbacks. I have had friends gang raped and I have been to enough funerals of girls who died way before they should.

 I have seen the results of your "anti-trafficking" moralism and it is very very nasty indeed.

but I guess I'm just a "liar" too right?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 24, 2009)

belboid said:


> no, the point being made is that you are a liar who is wholly ignorant of the realities of sex work in the uk.
> ...
> you live in a fantasy world.


This belboid bloke seems to be the most remarkably stupid person!


----------



## agricola (Oct 24, 2009)

Jonti said:


> This belboid bloke seems to be the most remarkably stupid person!



Of course he is!  I mean, he is resisting the nonsensical blandishments of your side based on nothing apart from his personal experiences of the people involved in this whole business.  Oh, and some minor nitpicking of what few pieces of evidence your side has seen fit to put up.  

IMHO he should listen more to Dylans' reasoned albeit fact-lite argument about a piece of UK legislation and a UK series of raids which is seemingly entirely based on anecdotes from a country half-way around the world from this country and which is vastly different from it.


----------



## dylans (Oct 24, 2009)

agricola said:


> Of course he is!  I mean, he is resisting the nonsensical blandishments of your side based on nothing apart from his personal experiences of the people involved in this whole business.  Oh, and some minor nitpicking of what few pieces of evidence your side has seen fit to put up.
> 
> IMHO he should listen more to Dylans' reasoned albeit fact-lite argument about a piece of UK legislation and a UK series of raids which is seemingly entirely based on anecdotes from a country half-way around the world from this country and which is vastly different from it.



My experience isnt in this country that is true. I have said that. You can dismiss that experience as irrelevant if you wish.

 However it is a fact that the anti trafficking discourse of sex worker as "victim,"  has been a major element of US European and UN foreign policy in relation to the sex industry in developing countries. 

 Countries not deemed sufficiently tough on "trafficking" face serious economic sanctions. This is law in the US.  Thus as a direct result of Western pressure, developing countries have been encouraged to enact the kind of legislation that has led to the kind of abuses that  I have witnessed and mentioned here.


----------



## belboid (Oct 24, 2009)

dylans said:


> No you do. Many of us on this thread have personal experience of the real conditions of sex workers and have posted about those experiences. You have chosen to either belittle those experiences or you have ignored them completely. For the record, I am married with a child. I am not a "punter looking for an excuse" as you imply.  I have known many sex workers as platonic friends of both myself and of my wife for over a decade. I feel privileged to have learnt so much about their lives.
> 
> As a result I have seen the misery and abuse that many of them have suffered over the past few years as a direct result of the "victim" to be "rescued" mentality of the anti trafficking lobby. I have had girls run into my home to avoid "rescues" from NGOS such as ECPAT. I have seen girls robbed of all their possessions by cops looking for kickbacks. I have had friends gang raped and I have been to enough funerals of girls who died way before they should.
> 
> ...



  yup, its all always about you isnt it?  just out of interest, how many of the people you are talking about were uk based sex workers?  Tgere is an important difference, especially as I have said throughout the thread that there uis a differnce betweeen here and cambodia/thailand etc.  You seem to be ignoring that.

I have neither belittled nor ignored the views of sex workers quoted, tho I do not accept that they speak for anything like all sex workers, they represent a significant number, but by no means all. I can and have recognised the bias of sourcfes, you have not.  You simply repeat uncritically.  No analysis, no atempt at sifting bias.

I have constantly supported full rights for sex workers and opposse the appalingly bad, and utterly unnecesary 2003 Act.  You choose to deny that I have done so, or imply that I havent. Becauise you cannot really back up your argument.  Had any of you (you, jonti, jessiedog and other the loony carousel) actuallyposted any _evidence_ I would be very happy to discuss tat in detail, but you haven't, and you simply reject anything that sdoesnt fit with your view.  Sometimes you have made valid criticisms of the studies, but then reject them wholesale, not tried to work out which bits have some validity and which dont.  Thats not an honest approach to a very serious issue.


Opne final time for the hard of hearing/thinking - traffickingf was massively exageratted by the government to fit a moralistic and anti-migrant, agenda. The Trafficking Act is an appaling piece of legislation, and what aspects of it were sane were already in existence and didn't require new legislation.  BUT - trafficking DOES exist, there are many people who suffer it.  

To quote the piece of academic research that has been widely quoted as _completely backing up_ the report on the exageration of trafficking:

"A minority of interviewees felt that they had been forced to
sell sex and that they had been exploited. Only a very small
minority of interviewees were deceived and forced into
selling sex in circumstances within which they felt they had
no share of control or consent. In the majority of the cases
encountered, interviewees were aware that they would be
selling sex, but not of the exploitative working conditions
that they were required to endure, which led them to find
ways to escape through the co-operation of clients, colleagues
and, especially if documented or not intending to
stay in the UK, the Police."

This report is the one I mentioned earlier, tho I slightly misheard him then, I said i thouht he said he'd studied 200 people, but it was only 100.  So that means 5% of the worklers interviewed had been "deceived and forced into
selling sex in circumstances within which they felt they had NO share of control or consent. "

5% - given the small number of interviewee's it could be a little higher or lower, but it stills represents, how many people?  Thousands?  Hundreds definitely.  But they dont matter or dont exist according to you, cos 'trafficking is a MYTH' and 'one is too many' (but the other 999 dont count for jessiedog). You are portraying a false account of sex work in this country.

And that IS a fact.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 24, 2009)

Well, I guess there's a lot of it about.


----------



## belboid (Oct 24, 2009)

dylans said:


> My experience isnt in this country that is true. I have said that. You can dismiss that experience as irrelevant if you wish.


so it says nothing abpout the natiure of work in this country, yet you constantly say everyone disagreeing with you is wrong, despite you knowing nothing about it!



> However it is a fact that the anti trafficking discourse of sex worker as "victim,"  has been a major element of US European and UN foreign policy in relation to the sex industry in developing countries.
> 
> Countries not deemed sufficiently tough on "trafficking" face serious economic sanctions. Thus as a direct result of Western pressure, developing countries have been encouraged to enact the kind of legislation that has led to the kind of abuses that  I have witnessed and mentioned here.


I agree with that, tho dont think it is a reason to brush everything else under the carpet, but wholly accept that that is a good and valid point.  It would be a shame to lose it because of the other innacuracies in your comments.


----------



## dylans (Oct 24, 2009)

belboid said:


> so it says nothing abpout the natiure of work in this country, yet you constantly say everyone disagreeing with you is wrong, despite you knowing nothing about it!
> 
> .



but don't you see that it is all part of the same perspective.  You agree in the last post that trafficking legislation leads to the consequences I have described yet you don't seem to put it together.

 The entire discourse is the problem. The entire perspective of sex worker=victim is what I describe as myth and it is.  That isnt to say that there are cases of abuse and coercion. My whole point is that the "anti-trafficking agenda bears responsibility for exactly those abuses because it is that perspective that criminalises sex work and makes sex workers vulnerable. It becomes a self validating argument, The more sex work is criminalised the more those very abuses will occur.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 24, 2009)

Shame to lose this too ... 





> ... for some reason best known to itself, UK sex trafficking law is purely concerned with moving people into, around or out of the UK. Fraud, coercion, deceit and so forth (and the little matter of whether these people actually want to get to, from and around the UK) are all deemed totally irrelevant.


----------



## dylans (Oct 24, 2009)

belboid said:


> yup, its all always about you isnt it? .



Well, I have posted about personal experiences involving real people, many of whom I consider good friends. You can roll your eyes and dismiss them as "all about me" if you want. Their experiences are real nevertheless.


----------



## belboid (Oct 24, 2009)

not dismissing anything at all, yet another shabby and false accusation. You assumed everything I wrote was being said about you (or at least that is what you wrote), so it's a bit sad you pretend otherwise.  You're knowledge of the uk sex industry is non-existent, yet you have kept claiming to know that we me n blagsta n grandma know are all talking rubbish!

The anti-trafficking agenda does bear _some_ responsibility for the abuse of sex workers, but by no means all, not by a long chalk.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 24, 2009)

What worries me about belboid is he enthusiastically pretended that this part of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 doesn't exist.

He thought, even passionately believed that helping willing peeps to make money by arranging a cab ride to their place of work could not possibly be called "trafficking" under uk law, and treated accordingly.

But ... 




			
				Sexual Offences Act 2003 said:
			
		

> *58 Trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation*
> *
> (1) A person commits an offence if he intentionally arranges or facilitates travel within the United Kingdom by another person (B) and either—
> 
> ...


* this just means sex work, as freely chosen as might be any other work open to _B_

Makes me wonder, that.


----------



## dylans (Oct 24, 2009)

belboid said:


> The anti-trafficking agenda does bear _some_ responsibility for the abuse of sex workers, but by no means all, not by a long chalk.



And there, in a nut shell, is where we disagree.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 24, 2009)

dylans said:


> My experience isnt in this country that is true. I have said that. You can dismiss that experience as irrelevant if you wish.
> 
> However it is a fact that the anti trafficking discourse of sex worker as "victim,"  has been a major element of US European and UN foreign policy in relation to the sex industry in developing countries.
> 
> Countries not deemed sufficiently tough on "trafficking" face serious economic sanctions. This is law in the US.  Thus as a direct result of Western pressure, developing countries have been encouraged to enact the kind of legislation that has led to the kind of abuses that  I have witnessed and mentioned here.




Just as international "drug laws" have a far more detrimental impact on developing countries than the developed countries that push them, so do "trafficking laws".



Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 24, 2009)

belboid said:


> so it says nothing abpout the natiure of work in this country, yet you constantly say everyone disagreeing with you is wrong, despite you knowing nothing about it!



Do you think that different countries need different laws in the area of prostitution and "trafficking"?

If so, why? Please give specific examples.

Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 24, 2009)

belboid said:


> ... The anti-trafficking agenda does bear _some_ responsibility for the abuse of sex workers, but by no means all, not by a long chalk.


Depends on what is meant by "anti-trafficking agenda".

If it's the one that ignores fraud, coercion, deceit and so forth, then its hands are undeniably bloody.


----------



## belboid (Oct 24, 2009)

Jonti said:


> What worries me about belboid is he enthusiastically pretended that this part of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 doesn't exist.
> 
> He thought, even passionately believed that helping willing peeps to make money by arranging a cab ride to their place of work could not possibly be called "trafficking" under uk law, and treated accordingly.
> 
> ...



Liar.  you can't stop yourself can you? I said your interpretation of it was wrong, and i showed why, from the very link you posted!


----------



## belboid (Oct 24, 2009)

dylans said:


> And there, in a nut shell, is where we disagree.



so there was no abuse before trafficking!!  what a nonsense.


----------



## dylans (Oct 24, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Depends on what is meant by "anti-trafficking agenda".
> 
> If it's the one that ignores fraud, coercion, deceit and so forth, then its hands are undeniably bloody.



In Cambodia a lot of cross border sex work involves Vietnamese girls crossing between Vietnam and Phnom Penh. There are cultural and family connections between many in the border and delta areas and these "informal" crossings  have  long been tolerated by both Hanoi and Phnom Penh and have been used for decades by both Vietnamese going to Phnom Penh and by Khmer's going the other way.

These "informal" crossings however are illegal, there is an interest by the border agencies on both sides of the border to keep this "informal" arrangement because of the kickbacks that can be made and because of the long history of this kind of movement.

When it comes to sex workers however things started to change with the impementation of US backed anti- trafficking legislation in 2003.  Where once the border crossing was routine, suddenly sex workers were being "rescued" as they crossed the border and sent back to Vietnam where prostitution is illegal and they faced imprisonment or, if they were Cambodian, sent to detention centres against their will. 

 Worse, anyone facilitating the border crossing, which up until then had been routine, was suddenly a "trafficker" and faced up to 10 years in prison. 

Now in almost all cases, the "traffickers" were simply other  girls, who for a few dollars would help a new girl move to Phnom Penh and get on her feet. She was now a "trafficker." 
Hardly the image we have of vicious gangsters with containers full of suffocating slaves is it?


----------



## belboid (Oct 24, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Do you think that different countries need different laws in the area of prostitution and "trafficking"?
> 
> If so, why? Please give specific examples.


different countries have different cultures and legal systems, of course they will need different laws!  probably not fundamentally different, but still different. 

(noted you don't try to deny your ignorance of the uk realities tho)


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 24, 2009)

dylans said:


> No you do. Many of us on this thread have personal experience of the real conditions of sex workers and have posted about those experiences. You have chosen to either belittle those experiences or you have ignored them completely.



Oh the irony.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 24, 2009)

That would be "belittle and sneer", then.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 24, 2009)

Jonti said:


> That would be "belittle and sneer", then.



More irony.  How ironic!


----------



## Jonti (Oct 24, 2009)

You should take a day or two off, Blagsta. I'm sure you deserve it.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 24, 2009)

belboid said:


> different countries have different cultures and legal systems, of course they will need different laws!  probably not fundamentally different, but still different.




Ummm.......If you'd noticed, specific examples regarding prostitution/"trafficking" was the thing I was looking for.

Why different, specifically?

What is so different about the global sex industry that would require different laws in different places?


Give it some thought, eh?






> (noted you don't try to deny your ignorance of the uk realities tho)



What makes you think I don't keep myself informed about the UK?

I do.

The UK sounds pretty much like everywhere else to me - somewhere between 0.21% and 0.42%.

Hardly anything other than a tiny, tiny minority.

Although, of course, even one is too many.



Woof


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 25, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Just as international "drug laws" have a far more detrimental impact on developing countries than the developed countries that push them, so do "trafficking laws".



As of course they are intended to.  The international 'war on drugs' is a transparent _carte blanche_ for US interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.  Anti-trafficking laws will serve the same purpose.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> As of course they are intended to.  The international 'war on drugs' is a transparent _carte blanche_ for US interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.  Anti-trafficking laws will serve the same purpose.



This is one of the most sensible things you've ever said.

I'm not being sarcastic btw!


----------



## dylans (Oct 25, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> This is one of the most sensible things you've ever said.
> 
> I'm not being sarcastic btw!



strange because it is exactly what I have been saying this entire thread, only to be greeted with scorn and abuse.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2009)

dylans said:


> strange because it is exactly what I have been saying this entire thread, only to be greeted with scorn and abuse.



Except you haven't have you.  Instead you've denied the existence of trafficking.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 25, 2009)

We've been correctly pointing out that the uk government has a misleading definition of trafficking enshrined in legislation, and has engaged in a massive deception of public and parliament to exaggerate the extent of sexual slavery in the uk.  

Others, supported by you, have hotly, but wholly incorrectly, denied the existence of this duplicicity, while declaring themselves experts on the uk prostitution scene.

As far as the UK is concerned, if sex work is involved, you're trafficked. Fraud, coercion, deceit and so forth (and the little matter of whether these people actually want to get to, from and around the UK) are all deemed totally irrelevant. 

But you "experts" didn't know that.  You were wrong. You had been duped. You now need to have a careful think about what this duplicity is intended to achieve.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2009)

I didn't comment on the trafficking aspect at all Jonti.  Dylans outright denied trafficking happens at all.

Will you fuck off with your misrepresentations.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 25, 2009)

Readers can see for themselves how you've sided, and continue to side.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Readers can see for themselves how you've sided, and continue to side.



Yep, you're right.  People can see.  They can see how you continually distort the arguments on these threads.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 25, 2009)

For example, if you were knowledgeable about the uk prostitution scene, as you claim, you could easily have posted Section 58 of the Sexual Offences Act  2003, in support of what I said.

But you did not; instead you sneered in support of those who were ignorant of its provisions. This suggests you shared their ignorance, or that you have more sinister reasons for obfuscation.

Or that you need a holiday.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2009)

Jonti said:


> For example, if you were knowledgeable about the uk prostitution scene, as you claim, you could easily have posted the Section 58 of the Sexual Offences Act  2003.
> 
> But you did not; instead you sneered in support of those who were ignorant of its provisions. This suggests you shared their ignorance, or that you have more sinister reasons for obfuscation.
> 
> Or that you need a holiday.



More distortions.  I asked you for an unbiased source to your claims.  That is all.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 25, 2009)

Bottom line is, you've said you knew what you're talking about, and joined the sniping at people who did.

You simply didn't bother to stir yourself to find out what is easily and publicly available; but went on the attack from a position of ignorance, demanding that others do the work, while sneering and sniping.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Bottom line is, you've said you knew what you're talking about, and joined the sniping at people who did.
> 
> You simply didn't bother to stir yourself to find out what is easily and publicly available; but went on the attack from a position of ignorance, demanding that others do the work, while sneering and sniping.



What are you on about?  I asked you for an unbiased source, which you then provided.  I didn't comment after that.

Please stop with your lies.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 25, 2009)

Most signally, you prefer to attack people (the same people the finger wagging moralisers attack) while not discussing the OP.

You've become a troll.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2009)

will you stop lying?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 25, 2009)

I'm not lying Blagsta. What's happening here is that you have become obsessed with making personal attacks, and are failing to discuss the OP.

That's trolling.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2009)

will you stop it jonti


----------



## Jonti (Oct 25, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> More distortions.  I asked you for an unbiased source to your claims.  That is all.


No, it's not "all".

You implicitly compared me to Jazzz, and, some might say, tried to smear the source I originally as of a par with the holocaust denial sites he uses.

But the real point is this; had you cared, you could easily have verified what I was saying; that *a person who gives a prostitute a lift to work is "trafficking"* according the uk government.  And you really should have known this anyway. It's kind of basic.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 25, 2009)

You've been pwned, Blagsta.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2009)

will you stop it you're becoming obsessed


----------



## dylans (Oct 25, 2009)

Jonti said:


> No, it's not "all".
> 
> You implicitly compared me to Jazzz, and, some might say, tried to smear the source I originally as of a par with the holocaust denial sites he uses.
> 
> But the real point is this; had you cared, you could easily have verified what I was saying; that *a person who gives a prostitute a lift to work is "trafficking"* according the uk government.  And you really should have known this anyway. It's kind of basic.



This is important. I have given examples previously of how sex workers in developing countries are being arrested for "trafficking" for simply aiding colleagues to cross the border or for giving friends a place to stay.

Time and time again, the people targeted by "Anti-trafficking" legislation are ordinary sex workers and we are being lied to by those who paint images of cargo holds full of chained slaves. The reality is far more mundane.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 25, 2009)

dylans said:


> This is important. I have given examples previously of how sex workers in developing countries are being arrested for "trafficking" for simply aiding colleagues to cross the border or for giving friends a place to stay.
> 
> Time and time again, the people targeted by "Anti-trafficking" legislation are ordinary sex workers and we are being lied to by those who paint images of cargo holds full of chained slaves. The reality is far more mundane.




And in the UK, (as Blagsta doesn't understand or is unaware), giving a lift to a mate for a (paid) date, is considered "trafficking" and can be prosecuted.





Woof


----------



## agricola (Oct 25, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> And in the UK, (as Blagsta doesn't understand or is unaware), giving a lift to a mate for a (paid) date, is considered "trafficking" and can be prosecuted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you have any evidence that has actually happened?


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 25, 2009)

agricola said:


> Do you have any evidence that has actually happened?



Earlier in the thread I reproduced a link (I think posted by belboid,) that detailed the fact that people have been prosecuted for doing precisely that - all the prosecution needed to show was that the defendants were engaged in the "transportation".

The authorities _may_ not prosecute a simple lift, but they can if they wish.

The law is a fool.

Badly drafted, catch-all laws!

Anyone remember RIPA, or section 44?


Once they're in place........




Woof


----------



## dylans (Oct 25, 2009)

agricola said:


> Do you have any evidence that has actually happened?



Why don't you ask me the same question in relation to South East Asia? Go on, I dare you.

'Anti-trafficking' laws and discourse and their affects on workers and human rights…

http://www.nswp.org/mobility/analysis.html

A report by Empower Chiang Mai on the human rights violations women are subjected to when "rescued" by anti-trafficking groups who employ methods using deception, force and coercion
June 2003

http://www.nswp.org/mobility/mpower-0306.html

when are you going to stop denying the obvious that "anti- trafficking" legislation across the world leads to  gross human rights abuses of sex workers


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 25, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Will you fuck off with your misrepresentations.



Impossible its his MO.


----------



## dylans (Oct 25, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Impossible its his MO.



oh it's the lying prostitute hater. Where have U been? "rescuing" sex workers?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2009)

dylans said:


> oh it's the lying prostitute hater. Where have U been? "rescuing" sex workers?



More misrepresentations.  Are you not capable of being honest?


----------



## dylans (Oct 25, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> More misrepresentations.  Are you not capable of being honest?



And you talk to me about irony ?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2009)

dylans said:


> And you talk to me about irony ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2009)

this thread's turned out better than i'd dare hope


----------



## dylans (Oct 25, 2009)

Blagsta said:


>



oh go and raid a brothel


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2009)

dylans said:


> oh go and raid a brothel



lol!


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Earlier in the thread I reproduced a link (I think posted by belboid,) that detailed the fact that people have been prosecuted for doing precisely that - all the prosecution needed to show was that the defendants were engaged in the "transportation".
> 
> The authorities _may_ not prosecute a simple lift, but they can if they wish.



and I posted up exactly why you were wrong in your interpretation of the law, yet you and jonti and now dylans keep repeating the originial claim despite not being able to disprove my facts.

That makes you a bunch of liars really, doesnt it?  The only thing you can use to defend yourselves, and its explcitly untrue!

You all,either thru ignorance or simply not wanting to kow, paint a totally false portrait of the realities of sex work, an absurdly rose tinted view where everything was just lovely before the traffcikkng acts.  What a joke.  

No recognitin of the role of exploitation within capitalism, no recognition of the role of sexism within capitalism, or of the nature of that sexism. No attempt to post any real evidence to back up your laughable theories either, just 'personal experioences' of 'hundreds' of sex workers.  Experiences whhc may or may not vbe complete bullshit.  Not one bit of actual hard evidence from the lot of you tho.  Pretty weak stuff.

It's not worth arguing with you, you will always keep your blinkers on and keep repeating your lies. 

Still, as long as you boys are happy....


----------



## Carousel (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:
			
		

> No recognitin of the role of exploitation within capitalism, no recognition of the role of sexism within capitalism, or of the nature of that sexism.


They recognise it alright. It's part the seedy thrill of it all. I mean, I could easily find someone even more sanctimonious than you who'd get on your case for not waking up in cold sweat, heart bleeding over some poor vulnerable you've failed in your obligation to protect. What you going to do then belboid? Some how I can't see you genuflecting in front of their moral superiority and even greater capacity for compassion. So why expect others to the same to you? How come you alone know the precise extent to which society should be sanitised to protect its most vulnerable members? Perhaps you've had a vision or hear voices. Still, as long as you're happy...


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

wow, with 'supporters' like carousel  on their side, jessiedog n co  must be over the moon!


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> No attempt to post any real evidence to back up your laughable theories either, just 'personal experioences' of 'hundreds' of sex workers.  Experiences whhc may or may not vbe complete bullshit.  Not one bit of actual hard evidence from the lot of you tho.  Pretty weak stuff.
> .



More bullshit?

*the case of the violent police raids of the Tanzabar and Nimtoli brothels in Bangladesh in 1999 where four hundred sex workers were evicted by police and imprisoned in vagrant homes where each was given a sewing machine. Human rights groups exposed the widespread beatings and sexual abuse that the women were subjected to as well as the the kidnapping and beating of Saathi, leader of the sex workers' movement against forced rehabilitation, until public pressure forced her release. The raids were orchestrated as a "rehabilitation effort" by the Department of Social Services in Bangladesh who had received 2 million dollars (U.S.) from the UNDP to implement "rehabilitation" projects.*​
http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/usa_2003/alternet-030521.html

The tragic thing is that you are not merely a liar. You actually believe the nonsense that you spew out.


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> wow, with 'supporters' like carousel  on their side, jessiedog n co  must be over the moon!



At least he's honest. Can you say the same about that lying, prostitute hating sack of shit Grandma death?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2009)

I'm aware of this sort of stuff Dylans. However the reality where I live is  somewhat different 

the IOM for example provide referrals to shelters, which are entirely voluntary and most of the time the people using those services choose not to go to the police. which is entirely their choice, and probably rather sensible


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


> More bullshit?
> 
> *the case of the violent police raids of the Tanzabar and Nimtoli brothels in Bangladesh in 1999 where four hundred sex workers were evicted by police and imprisoned in vagrant homes where each was given a sewing machine. Human rights groups exposed the widespread beatings and sexual abuse that the women were subjected to as well as the the kidnapping and beating of Saathi, leader of the sex workers' movement against forced rehabilitation, until public pressure forced her release. The raids were orchestrated as a "rehabilitation effort" by the Department of Social Services in Bangladesh who had received 2 million dollars (U.S.) from the UNDP to implement "rehabilitation" projects.*​
> http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/usa_2003/alternet-030521.html
> ...



This horrendous action does absolutely nothing to repudiate a single one of my arguments.  That is because you have not even attempted to repudiate my arguments, you just ignore them.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


> At least he's honest.



 

yes dear, of course he is.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2009)

Does anyone honestly think that someone could be convicted of trafficking based on giving a lift to someone else? 

The authorities have a hard enough time convicting anyone of trafficking. The media where I am actually presents the activity in a positive light sometimes! I read a report about a newspaper article about a girl who was trafficked, it was presented as a glamorous mills and boon type love story with a happy ending. 

Trafficking is realy hard to convict anyway. Do you honestly think a jury would look at a fucking cab driver giving a lift to a prostitute and think they are a trafficker? It sounds like those scare stories about people being convicted of rape and having their "lives ruined" and sent to jail, when in reality this barely ever happens.


----------



## Carousel (Oct 26, 2009)

> Do you honestly think a jury would look at a fucking cab driver giving a lift to a prostitute and think they are a trafficker?


Having sat on a Jury, I think there's a strong possibility. Especially given the demographics of juries at the mo, ancient curtain twitchers. The loons I was with were more than happy to send some poor chav down for Threats to Kill based on the uncorroborated word of a copper. Say they had a moral aversion to prostitution in itself, like many here, it's not unusual. Wouldn't fancy the cabby's chances, especially if he happened to turn up with a gold tooth and floppy purple felt hat.


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Does anyone honestly think that someone could be convicted of trafficking based on giving a lift to someone else?



Frogwoman do you think this is trafficking?

A Vietnamese girl is working in a bar in Phnom Penh. Every six months she returns home to her village to give money to her family. She has nice clothes and her family now have a new roof and some land. A girl in that village, perhaps widowed, perhaps abandoned perhaps just sick of being poor, sees the girl return to her Village.

She approaches her and asks her how she does it. How she has escaped the poverty of her village. The girl explains she is a hooker in Phnom Penh  and can make $30.00 a trick. The village girl asks her to take her with her to Phnom Penh. The hooker agrees. She knows the routes to cross the border, which guards to bribe which guards to fuck. She can give the new girl a place to stay for a few weeks. She can lend her clothes and show her how to put on make up. She knows the bars and can show the new girl how to approach customers. 
For this the hooker asks for 20% percent of the new girls profits for say 6 months.  The new girl agrees and goes with her.
6 months later, our village girl is now on her feet. She returns to her village and is approached by a village girl .............and so it goes on.

This, according to "anti-trafficking" legislation is trafficking. Do you think that the girls in this story deserve 10 years in prison. ?

This is the mundane reality of so called "trafficking"


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2009)

It's not trafficking, no. But I don't understand how the fact that corrupt police and law enforcement agencies end up punishing people like that means that "real" trafficking does not exist. 

If I remember correctly you're the clown who said that Iraqi "resistance" fighters were heroes for killing British troops so it's no surprise you're coming out with this sort of shite reminiscent of a 9/11 conspiracy.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

That isn't trafficking.

Personally tho, I doubt whether it is an accurate description of the reality, as it reads exactly like a pimps version of reality.  No consideration of the extent to which the happy hooker lies about the conditions which the new girls will be working in, no consideration of whether the HH is recruiting new girls n order to help pay off her debts to her pimp. No consideration of just what the new girl is going to be asked to do.

Given what a wonderful working life dylans seems to think cambodian sex workers have, its quite astounding thart there are any girls left in villages at all.  But perhaps their new life isn't quite as rosy as he wants to believe after all.


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> It's not trafficking, no.



No it isn't. It is the reality of illegal cross border migration by sex workers.  It is exactly girls like the one I describe above who are being prosecuted for "trafficking."


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> That isn't trafficking.
> 
> Personally tho, *I doubt whether it is an accurate description of the reality*, as it reads exactly like a pimps version of reality.  No consideration of the extent to which the happy hooker lies about the conditions which the new girls will be working in, no consideration of whether the HH is recruiting new girls n order to help pay off her debts to her pimp. No consideration of just what the new girl is going to be asked to do.
> 
> Given what a wonderful working life dylans seems to think cambodian sex workers have, its quite astounding thart there are any girls left in villages at all.  But perhaps their new life isn't quite as rosy as he wants to believe after all.



Sex work is a choice. A hard choice out of poverty. A difficult choice i am sure made after hard and long soul searching. A choice that brings social shame and stigma. Noone is claiming it is an easy choice and no one is painting a picture of "wonderful" conditions. Some choose it some don't but you are deluding yourself if you  want to replace this reality with your mythical version of "sex slaves." 

 It may make you feel better but it has nothing to do with the  reality of sex work.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2009)

Except that nobody has been promoting a mythical version of sex slaves upon this thread


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2009)

you think iraq should own kuwait lol.


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> It's not trafficking, no. But I don't understand how the fact that corrupt police and law enforcement agencies end up punishing people like that means that "real" trafficking does not exist.
> 
> If I remember correctly you're the clown who said that Iraqi "resistance" fighters were heroes for killing British troops so it's no surprise you're coming out with this sort of shite reminiscent of a 9/11 conspiracy.



If you want to discuss the morality and rights of national resistance to illegal foreign occupations we can do that on a different thread. Throwing that at me here just looks like an irrelevant smear.


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> you think iraq should own kuwait lol.



Behave yourself.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Except that nobody has been promoting a mythical version of sex slaves upon this thread


nope, and the fact that dylans (who is at least the most honest out of a bad bunch) has to keep pretending that we do shows the weakeness of his argument.

Not much else to be said really, is there?


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> nope, and the fact that dylans (who is at least the most honest out of a bad bunch) has to keep pretending that we do shows the weakeness of his argument.
> 
> Not much else to be said really, is there?



Why don't you just call me a rapist belboid?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


> If you want to discuss the morality and rights of national resistance to illegal foreign occupations we can do that on a different thread. Throwing that at me here just looks like an irrelevant smear.



I wasn't trying to smear you. 

My apologies if you weren't the guy who said that but the stuff you've been saying on this thread is reminiscent of a conspiracy theorist who just believes what they believe in the face of every fact available and posts up "why isn't this paper on fire" type pictures as if it adds to the validity of their aguement


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I wasn't trying to smear you.



Yes you were but don't worry  Those of us who fight for the rights of sex workers are used to it from those on your side.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


> Behave yourself.



You were the one who said it


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> every fact available t



May I remind you of the OP

*The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country.

The failure has been disclosed by a Guardian investigation which also suggests that the scale of and nature of sex trafficking into the UK has been exaggerated by politicians and media.

Current and former ministers have claimed that thousands of women have been imported into the UK and forced to work as sex slaves, but most of these statements were either based on distortions of quoted sources or fabrications without any source at all.*

Who has denied facts?


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

oops. double post


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


> Why don't you just call me a rapist belboid?



well done, just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you are incapable of making an argument.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


> Yes you were but don't worry  Those of us who fight for the rights of sex workers are used to it from those on your side.



"Keep on drinking the kool-aid, Sheeple!"


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> well done, just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you are incapable of making an argument.



You wish.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

No, I wish you  could come up with some real evidence, you know, reliable statistics, in depth studies, that kind of thing.  but instead you simply repeat your rosy view of how women are drawn into prostitution, and throw insults around.  Now I've nothing against insults, but they work better when they follow from what someone has actually said, not jsut because you've been completely and utterly ripped apart because of your own inability to make an argument.


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> No, I wish you  could come up with some real evidence, you know, reliable statistics, in depth studies, that kind of thing.  but instead you simply repeat your rosy view of how women are drawn into prostitution, and throw insults around.  Now I've nothing against insults, but they work better when they follow from what someone has actually said, not jsut because you've been completely and utterly ripped apart because of your own inability to make an argument.



Beboid, who was it that became so abusive earlier in the thread that they had to be repeatedly warned by the mods? Who was that?

I have posted the testimonies of sex workers around the globe, from Cambodia, Thailand, Australia, Canada, India, Bangladesh, the Philippines. I have posted video testimony from sex workers across Pacific Asia. I have posted appaling accounts of human rights abuses at the hands of your "anti trafficking" mafia. 
And you have shrugged your shoulders and dismissed them all. 
You have said it yourself, you hold no value in the voices of sex workers. You know best.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


> Beboid, who was it that became so abusive earlier in the thread that they had to be repeatedly warned by the mods? Who was that?



???? your memory is rather poor.  there was one single post from a nod saying 'I'm not sure what this means, but I dont like the sound of it,' which is neither 'repeatedly' nor even a warning really. Once again you are playing rather fast and loose with the facts.

And, of course, I used the word you object to on someone elses behalf oh so moralistically, only after said person had repeatedly said 'belboid wants to kill prostitutes' and similar such comments.  but they dont count do they?

And you carry on doing it!  'your anti-trafficking mafia', 'you hold no value in the voices of sex worker' - despite actually posting the voices of other sex workers (just not ones who agree with you) and consistently stating my opposition to the trafficking laws.

You are exposed as a shallow liar dylans. Shame.


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> You are exposed as a shallow liar dylans. Shame.



More shallow liars?


----------



## Carousel (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:
			
		

> Now I've nothing against insults


Insults "need" opposing.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

and once again, dylans ignores everything said to him.

utterly pathetic.  i suppose i should be graateful he hasn't said i want to kill prostitutes tho.


----------



## agricola (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


> Why don't you ask me the same question in relation to South East Asia? Go on, I dare you.
> 
> 'Anti-trafficking' laws and discourse and their affects on workers and human rights…
> 
> ...



Ok, I dare you to say why a law limited to the jurisdiction of the UK hasnt been used to prosecute offences that have taken place in SE Asia.  Be warned though, I probably already know the answer.


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

agricola said:


> Ok, I dare you to say why a law limited to the jurisdiction of the UK hasnt been used to prosecute offences that have taken place in SE Asia. Be warned though, I probably already know the answer.



I'm not quite sure of your question.
You are not denying that "anti-trafficking" legislation, conceived and enacted by Western countries  is being used to force poor countries to legislate against sex work are you? Even you aren't that deluded.

 Surely then the question isn't which laws are _not_ being used to force anti sex work agenda onto developing countries, but which legislation _is._?

 It is not British legislation, it is US. The US publishes an  annual "World Trafficking Report, which classifies, lists and sanctions countries in relation to their "activities to address traficking." Countries that don't meet the standard are subject to sanctions

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+cri...icking+discourse+and+U.S.+policy.-a0170927354

http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/whats-wrong-with-the-trafficking-crusade

http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/us-anti-sex-trafficking-law-causes-police-violence-in-cambodia


* "There is a mass blindness going on, like the phenomenon of the Emperor’s New Clothes, where everyone knew he was naked but no one said so. There is now enough evidence - maybe even acceptable in a court of law! - that anti-trafficking laws cause more violence and injustice than they prevent"*


----------



## TopCat (Oct 26, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> It sounds like those scare stories about people being convicted of rape and having their "lives ruined" and sent to jail, when in reality this barely ever happens.



Yeah there is no problem with regard to unfounded accusations of rape eh? Any people convicted then freed due to re examination of the evidence were probably guilty right? Certainly guilty of being men eh?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2009)

sorry, but if someone's actually sent to jail for it, it's a pretty safe bet that they're guilty IMO, yeah. Sorry but that's what i believe. 

Of course people do occasionally get wrongfully convicted but it's nothing like what's usually portrayed, especially in the UK where only about 6% result in a conviction anyway, due to the low reporting rate and the like


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2009)

Interesting btw that you just jumped on that part of my post as opposed to the other posts that I have been making in the thread  yeah, maybe i'm prejudiced and maybe me that makes me a twat but i think given the statistics its common sense !!


----------



## agricola (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


> I'm not quite sure of your question.
> You are not denying that "anti-trafficking" legislation, conceived and enacted by Western countries  is being used to force poor countries to legislate against sex work are you? Even you aren't that deluded.



I must be that deluded, after all its clear that the OP was talking about an operation confined to the UK, carried out by UK police forces and which relied on UK legislation to prosecute offenders.  Your continual reference to stuff that goes on in SE Asia is not relevant to the debate over Pentameter II or the Bill going through Parliament now, in much the same way as citing the recent chaos in Brazil as evidence would not be especially relevant to the current debate over public order policing in the UK.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 26, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> sorry, but if someone's actually sent to jail for it, it's a pretty safe bet that they're guilty IMO, yeah. Sorry but that's what i believe.
> 
> Of course people do occasionally get wrongfully convicted but it's nothing like what's usually portrayed, especially in the UK where only about 6% result in a conviction anyway, due to the low reporting rate and the like



Your a twat as you say.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 26, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Interesting btw that you just jumped on that part of my post as opposed to the other posts that I have been making in the thread  yeah, maybe i'm prejudiced and maybe me that makes me a twat but i think given the statistics its common sense !!



Your previous posts are obviously informed by your prejudice.


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

agricola said:


> I must be that deluded, after all its clear that the OP was talking about an operation confined to the UK, carried out by UK police forces and which relied on UK legislation to prosecute offenders. .



And what was the conclusion of that operation? 

How many "traffickers were arrested?

How many "traffickers" prosecuted? 

How many "sex slaves" rescued? 

*The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution *

Give it up. Your lies have been exposed.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


> Give it up. Your lies have been exposed.



and back he goes to square one.

Is this just going to be a question of who gets bored last, and so proclaims themselves 'the winner'.

You've convinced no one dylans, give it up.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> and back he goes to square one.
> 
> Is this just going to be a question of who gets bored last, and so proclaims themselves 'the winner'.
> 
> You've convinced no one dylans, give it up.



You represent no one but yourself belboid. Who knows how many have been convinced by any of the arguments on here.


----------



## agricola (Oct 26, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> sorry, but if someone's actually sent to jail for it, it's a pretty safe bet that they're guilty IMO, yeah. Sorry but that's what i believe.
> 
> Of course people do occasionally get wrongfully convicted but it's nothing like what's usually portrayed, especially in the UK where only about 6% result in a conviction anyway, due to the low reporting rate and the like



As bad as those statistics are, the nature of many of the offences (acquaintance rapes especially) does make convictions very difficult to achieve, given the beyond-all-reasonable-doubt system where its usually one persons word against another and the difficulty of disproving a defence of consent.

That said, given the hoops that have to be jumped through in order to get a conviction for rape it is understandable to think that anyone convicted is actually guilty.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

TopCat said:


> Who knows how many have been convinced by any of the arguments on here.



just going on who has jumped in to back up his points - on the few occasions he has made any, rather than just calling others moralists and would be prostitute killers.  Good company he keeps


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> and back he goes to square one.
> 
> Is this just going to be a question of who gets bored last, and so proclaims themselves 'the winner'.
> 
> You've convinced no one dylans, give it up.



Don't be so sure. The myth is being questioned worldwide. Finally, despite the lies, the insults, the abuse, the false statistics,   the "anti trafficking" lobby is being seen for what it is, a reactionary attempt to criminalise sex work.

http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/usa_2003/alternet-030521.html

http://www.nswp.org/nswp/conferences/xivaids/nswp-0207.html

http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/tip-trafficking-in-persons-the-no-methodology-report


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

uhuh, this from a man who thinks there was no abuse of sex workers before the introduction of anti-trafficking laws


----------



## agricola (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


> And what was the conclusion of that operation?
> 
> How many "traffickers were arrested?
> 
> ...



You do know that fifteen people were convicted of trafficking during Pentameter 2, right?  That five of them (though not dealt with under P2) actually "were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes" - and thats from the OP you base your argument on.


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

agricola said:


> You do know that fifteen people were convicted of trafficking during Pentameter 2, right?  .[/URL]


----------



## agricola (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


>



Ah, I see how evidence from the article posted at the start of this thread that five people were found guilty of something you said didnt exist - indeed, which was a myth - can make you facepalm.  Its just a shame we had to have forty pages of shite in order for you to realise it.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


>



your best answer yet!

Around 1000 women 'were deceived and forced into selling sex in circumstances within which they felt they had no share of control or consent', yup, totally deserving of nothing more than a facepalm.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 26, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> this thread's turned out better than i'd dare hope



Troll!




Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

The head of the UK Human Trafficking Centre, Grahame Maxwell, who is chief constable of North Yorkshire, acknowledged the importance of the figures: "The facts speak for themselves. I'm not trying to argue with them in any shape or form," he said. 

He said he had commissioned fresh research from regional intelligence units to try to get a clearer picture of the scale of sex trafficking. "What we're trying to do is to get it gently back to some reality here," he said.

"It's not where you go down on every street corner in every street in Britain, and there's a trafficked individual.

"There are more people trafficked for labour exploitation than there are for sexual exploitation. We need to redress the balance here. People just seem to grab figures from the air."


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

Grahame Maxwell is right. People have been grabbing figures from the air.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

The trouble with the UK crime figures for "trafficking prostitutes" is that they are based on UK law; and UK law counts it as a trafficking offense if someone gives a prostitute a lift to where she works.

That's a fact, although one which has been hotly denied in this thread.  And it's a fact which makes the official figures for the trafficking of prostitutes ... misleading.

What we know for sure, is that even after Pentameters One and Two, the convictions for this offence under UK law barely made double figures; and the number of sex-workers rescued from servitude and slavery was also very low.  

A slender basis indeed, on which to build a moral panic.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

Jonti said:


> The trouble with the UK crime figures for "trafficking prostitutes" is that they are based on UK law; and UK law counts it as a trafficking offense if someone gives a prostitute a lift to where she works.
> 
> That's a fact, although one which has been hotly denied in this thread.


actually it's  a 'fact' that has been disproved.

If you disagree, why have you never ever ever argued against the disproof? Rather you just ignore it, but then repeat the original claim a few pages later, hoping (I can only assume) that everyone else has forgotten!

And still you continue to deny that many women are abused whilst working, pretend they are almost all happy as larry in their job, and that punters are a charming group of gentlemen.


----------



## agricola (Oct 26, 2009)

Jonti said:


> The trouble with the UK crime figures for "trafficking prostitutes" is that they are based on UK law; and UK law counts it as a trafficking offense if someone gives a prostitute a lift to where she works.
> 
> That's a fact, although one which has been hotly denied in this thread.  And it's a fact which makes the official figures for the trafficking of prostitutes ... misleading.
> 
> ...



Surely your post contradicts itself?  I mean, you point to the alleged ease with which a person can be guilty of trafficking by giving someone a lift, then also demonstrate that very few people are found guilty of it.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2009)

agricola said:


> You do know that fifteen people were convicted of trafficking during Pentameter 2, right?  That five of them (though not dealt with under P2) actually "were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes" - and thats from the OP you base your argument on.



15 people. 15? How many hours needed to convict those 15?


----------



## agricola (Oct 26, 2009)

cesare said:


> 15 people. 15? How many hours needed to convict those 15?



Probably lots.  The point is that, according to dylans, trafficking is a myth.


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> your best answer yet!
> 
> *Around 1000 women 'were deceived and forced into selling sex in circumstances within which they felt they had no share of control or consent'*, yup, totally deserving of nothing more than a facepalm.



Can you provide a link to that claim please? 

Cus I just reread the article 4 times and I couldn't find it.

 i did notice this however

"Pentameter used a very different definition, from the UK's 2003 Sexual Offences Act, which makes it an offence to transport a man or woman into prostitution *even if this involves assisting a willing sex worker"*.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails

FFS. Even if it involves assisting a willing sex worker?

Which would make Jonti's claim correct. By this definition the Vietnamese girl in my example earlier is also a "trafficker"


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2009)

agricola said:


> Probably lots.  The point is that, according to dylans, trafficking is a myth.



Tbh, I think that the point now comes down to pointless polarisation of the two extremes of the argument.

Arguing for sex workers rights doesn't necessarily mean 'happy hookers'.

Arguing that trafficking exists even if hugely overplayed in the UK doesn't necessarily mean that trafficking is a myth.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

Look harder, its from the Nick Mai report jonti has quoted from approvingly.  As have others.

Your interpretation of the law is simply wrong as was shown by the fact that the woman prosecuted under it was a madam, and the driver - ie the bloke who actually 'transported' the worker wasn't prosecuted at all.

It is sad and a bit pathetic that the only specific reason you have given to oppose a reactionary law is one that you've misinterpreted.

as to your possibly existing vietnamese girl....i don't think someone who takes 20% of anothers earnings after importuning them to take up sex work should be called a 'trafficker' but she is hardly an honest virtuous friend of the poor (unless of course she is doing so under duress, as she has tp pay off her pimp.  but the vietnamese dont have pimps according to you)


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

cesare said:


> Tbh, I think that the point now comes down to pointless polarisation of the two extremes of the argument.
> 
> Arguing for sex workers rights doesn't necessarily mean 'happy hookers'.
> 
> Arguing that trafficking exists even if hugely overplayed in the UK doesn't necessarily mean that trafficking is a myth.



sadly, dylans and jonti and jessiedog have preciesly argued the 'happy hooker' line, several times.  They recognise that there is a tiny number of people for whom that isn't true, but they are not important.

They refuse to recognise the thousands of women in the uk who are seriously abused regularly, the levels of violence against sex worker, or the levels of serious drug use.  Pretty big things to overlook


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> uhuh, this from a man who thinks there was no abuse of sex workers before the introduction of anti-trafficking laws



Getting desperate now, and wildly misrepresenting your opponents positions.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> sadly, dylans and jonti and jessiedog have preciesly argued the 'happy hooker' line, several times.



Risible and flagrant misrepresentation, the mark of a defeated debater.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

it's a pretty direct quote actually philip, and one dylans didn't deny at the time.

so go away and play with yourself a good little boy, your trolling is quite unnecessary here.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> And still you continue to deny that many women are abused whilst working, pretend they are almost all happy as larry in their job, and that punters are a charming group of gentlemen.



Truly outrageous misrepresentation, Belboid now floundering out of control.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

have you anything to say on the actual subject of the thread philip, or do you just want to continue one of you pathetic spats?

insult as much as you like, the only people who listen to you are other lunatics and trolls.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> have you anything to say on the actual subject of the thread philip, or do you just want to continue one of you pathetic spats?
> 
> insult as much as you like, the only people who listen to you are other lunatics and trolls.



I haven't insulted you.  Just noted that you've lost this argument.


----------



## innit (Oct 26, 2009)

cesare said:


> 15 people. 15? How many hours needed to convict those 15?



167 victims, including 12 children, were rescued - isn't that worth a significant number of hours?

The operation also recovered at least £500,000 in proceeds of crime which would pay for some of those hours.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I haven't insulted you.  Just noted that you've lost this argument.



oh no!  the boards biggest, dullest, troll thinks i've lost the argument!!

I must have wiped the floor with them then


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> sadly, dylans and jonti and jessiedog have preciesly argued the 'happy hooker' line, several times.  They recognise that there is a tiny number of people for whom that isn't true, but they are not important.
> 
> They refuse to recognise the thousands of women in the uk who are seriously abused regularly, the levels of violence against sex worker, or the levels of serious drug use.  Pretty big things to overlook



That's not my perception tbh. From my pov, dylans looks as though s/he is presenting his/her argument from an international perspective based on experience abroad. Froggie's doing similar in a way. Jessie's given some UK specific examples but from a couple of decades ago, and picked up (rightly imo) on the disabled angle. But keen to point out that every abused person is significant. And Jonti's making a theoretical argument with lots of links to back up his position. Etc etc. I don't think anyone's been out of order, apart from where it got all accusatory, unpleasant and personal.  But it is polarised, yeah? Working to the extremes rather than the majority of stuff in the middle?


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> it's a pretty direct quote actually philip, and one dylans didn't deny at the time.
> 
> so go away and play with yourself a good little boy, your trolling is quite unnecessary here.



Can you show me where I make that claim please?


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2009)

innit said:


> 167 victims, including 12 children, were rescued - isn't that worth a significant number of hours?
> 
> The operation also recovered at least £500,000 in proceeds of crime which would pay for some of those hours.



Of course it's worth a significant number of hours. I'm not sure that the crime proceeds go directly back into funding it though, which is what you infer. 

But given a limited number of hours available for policing - proportionately, is this the best use of resource given the number of other worthy causes?


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

well, we have very different interpretations.  The simple fact that they have ALL ignored or simply written off every bit of evidence that disagrees with their pov makes their positon clear. They have constantly downplayed the problems associated with the industry and completely ignored the sexism.

And jessies disability argument is one of the most patronising loads of shite going. uggh, those horrid disabled people, _no one_ would want to have sex with them without being paid, would they?'


----------



## agricola (Oct 26, 2009)

cesare said:


> That's not my perception tbh. From my pov, dylans looks as though s/he is presenting his/her argument from an international perspective based on experience abroad. Froggie's doing similar in a way. Jessie's given some UK specific examples but from a couple of decades ago, and picked up (rightly imo) on the disabled angle. But keen to point out that every abused person is significant. And Jonti's making a theoretical argument with lots of links to back up his position. Etc etc. I don't think anyone's been out of order, apart from where it got all accusatory, unpleasant and personal.  But it is polarised, yeah? Working to the extremes rather than the majority of stuff in the middle?



If that is what had happened then I would agree with you - but it isnt.  

For instance, I am somehow being labelled part of this mafia of dylans' despite saying at the time (and repeated here) that this bill - and the policy of the government - was daft and would probably make sex workers lives more dangerous, and of course for making the heretical suggestion that sex workers may turn to that line of work for reasons other than free choice.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> well, we have very different interpretations.  The simple fact that they have ALL ignored or simply written off every bit of evidence that disagrees with their pov makes their positon clear. They have constantly downplayed the problems associated with the industry and completely ignored the sexism.
> 
> And jessies disability argument is one of the most patronising loads of shite going. uggh, those horrid disabled people, _no one_ would want to have sex with them without being paid, would they?'



I originally brought up that disability point though, in response to Nigel Irritable wanting to criminalise/outlaw *all* punters. Jessiedog just ran with the point with an anecdotal example. Nigel never actually answered my question.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


> At least he's honest. Can you say the same about that lying, prostitute hating sack of shit Grandma death?



Dear oh dear....do keep it up cause you're really starting to make yourself look a complete and utter twunt.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

dylans said:


> Can you show me where I make that claim please?





dylans said:


> belboid said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



to which the reply was:



belboid said:


> so there was no abuse before trafficking!!  what a nonsense.



to which dylans reply was

.......



Now, if you want to change your mind, and respond, I'd be fascinated to know just what levels of abuse you accept existed, what the root cause of those were, and what that says about the industry as a whole.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

cesare said:


> I originally brought up that disability point though, in response to Nigel Irritable wanting to criminalise/outlaw *all* punters. Jessiedog just ran with the point with an anecdotal example. Nigel never actually answered my question.



yeah, and why I do have _some_ sympathy with the argument, it is also a very patronising one.  lots of disabled people find loving sexual partners without the need for to pay for it. 

tho one shouldn't ever just lump all punters together as a simple monothought group.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 26, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Truly outrageous misrepresentation, Belboid now floundering out of control.



Fuck off dwyer!


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2009)

agricola said:


> If that is what had happened then I would agree with you - but it isnt.
> 
> For instance, I am somehow being labelled part of this mafia of dylans' despite saying at the time (and repeated here) that this bill - and the policy of the government - was daft and would probably make sex workers lives more dangerous, and of course for making the heretical suggestion that sex workers may turn to that line of work for reasons other than free choice.



Well maybe I'm not getting it then. I thought the debate was about disproportionate policing/legislation in the UK that somehow wandered off into international waters/experience and applying international experience to the UK - which might not be such a good thing to do.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Dear oh dear....do keep it up cause you're really starting to make yourself look a complete and utter twunt.



yeh, funny how the likes of phil love to scream about some peoples 'lies', they are very happy to ignore the lies of people on the other side of the argument.

could he have an _agenda_ perhaps???


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> yeh, funny how the likes of phil love to scream about some peoples 'lies', they are very happy to ignore the lies of people on the other side of the argument.
> 
> could he have an _agenda_ perhaps???



Phil is only worthy of one response really.....


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Phil is only worthy of one response really.....



true, even those he's ostensibly agreeing with are normally embarrassed by the fact


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

*Sexual Offences Act 2003*



> 58 Trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation*
> 
> (1) A person commits an offence if he intentionally arranges or facilitates travel within the United Kingdom by another person (B) and either—
> 
> ...


* sexual exploitation means just sex work ~ the words do not imply servitude or slavery in this context


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

posting the same thing over and over doesn't make your misinterpretation any more true tho


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> yeah, and why I do have _some_ sympathy with the argument, it is also a very patronising one.  lots of disabled people find loving sexual partners without the need for to pay for it.
> 
> tho one shouldn't ever just lump all punters together as a simple monothought group.



From my point of view, I was asking if Nigel Irritable was including all punters, *all.* Including the severely disabled. He didn't answer. If he had, the conversation would have turned to matters such as where do you draw the dividing line? What's acceptable and what's not? And why? 

But Jessie following up the point with an anecdotal answer showed how it can play out. But also deflected the question, cos then people home in on the anecdotal example and extrapolate from that (potentially to a patronising position), rather than the original question to Nigel.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> actually it's  a 'fact' that has been disproved.


See above.



belboid said:


> And still you continue to deny that many women are abused whilst working, pretend they are almost all happy as larry in their job, and that punters are a charming group of gentlemen.


This is pretty close to slander. You lying sack of shit


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

agricola said:


> Surely your post contradicts itself?  I mean, you point to the alleged ease with which a person can be guilty of trafficking by giving someone a lift, then also demonstrate that very few people are found guilty of it.


It's a catch all law, as you will see for yourself by reading section 58 of the Sexual Offenses Act 2003, above.

Of course they used it to prosecute the madam. She knew the sex workers were going to a brothel (any brothel!); the driver arguably did not.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> posting the same thing over and over doesn't make your misinterpretation any more true tho


I've quoted the Act.

I take it you now want to know more about "sexual exploitation" within the meaning of that Act?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> sadly, dylans and jonti and jessiedog have preciesly argued the 'happy hooker' line, several times.  They recognise that there is a tiny number of people for whom that isn't true, but they are not important.
> 
> They refuse to recognise the thousands of women in the uk who are seriously abused regularly, the levels of violence against sex worker, or the levels of serious drug use.  Pretty big things to overlook


I think this is provably false, and arguably damaging to my reputation


----------



## agricola (Oct 26, 2009)

Jonti said:


> It's a catch all law, as you will see for yourself by reading section 58 of the Sexual Offenses Act 2003, above.
> 
> Of course they used it to prosecute the madam. She knew the sex workers were going to a brothel (any brothel!); the driver arguably did not.



So its a catch all law that doesnt catch everyone... in fact it catches very few people (and seemingly noone based on what you claim the law means) according to your own statements.




			
				cesare said:
			
		

> Well maybe I'm not getting it then. I thought the debate was about disproportionate policing/legislation in the UK that somehow wandered off into international waters/experience and applying international experience to the UK - which might not be such a good thing to do.



Thats what this debate should be, but the three posters mentioned - especially dylans - have based their arguments on non-UK evidence, clear mis-statements of what some people have said here, a naive view of the motivating factors involved in the choices of large numbers of sex workers and, finally, a misunderstanding of what the original article said.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

agricola said:


> If that is what had happened then I would agree with you - but it isnt.
> 
> For instance, I am somehow being labelled part of this mafia of dylans' despite saying at the time (and repeated here) that this bill - and the policy of the government - was daft and would probably make sex workers lives more dangerous, and of course for making the heretical suggestion that sex workers may turn to that line of work for reasons other than free choice.


He should be more careful, if that's the case.  

The Act is daft; I see no room for doubt that its effect has been to make sex workers lives more dangerous; and I know there is still servitude and slavery in the UK, including in the sex industry.


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2009)

> to which dylans reply was
> 
> .......
> 
> ...



Oh so I didn't claim that. Just another lie by you then?

Of course abuse exists in an industry that has been forced to exist in a twilight world of illegality. The "anti-trafficking" discourse is only the latest in a long history of attempts to criminalise prostitution. Just as abuses exist in all industries where workers rights aren't recognised. It is precisely the enforcement of those rights that has alleviated many of those abuses.

My point is that the recognition of sex work as legitimate labour and the enforcement of workers rights for sex workers is a precondition for ending abuse in the sex industry . "Anti-trafficking" is a discourse that by reducing sex workers to "victims", does the opposite.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

> So its a catch all law that doesnt catch everyone... in fact it catches very few people (and seemingly noone based on what you claim the law means) according to your own statements.


If you give a prostitute friend a lift to her place of work then you're trafficking; I think people have taken it that one knows what one's friend does for a living. That's certainly what I'd have expected them to assume.

Yes, you have to know what they do for a living, and that they're going to work.  But that's the point: the Act ignores servitude and slavery when it talks about the trafficking of sex workers within the UK.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2009)

agricola said:


> Thats what this debate should be, but the three posters mentioned - especially dylans - have based their arguments on non-UK evidence, clear mis-statements of what some people have said here, a naive view of the motivating factors involved in the choices of large numbers of sex workers and, finally, a misunderstanding of what the original article said.



Maybe. I'm nearer the Carousel position on this, though presenting it in a different manner.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

The great virtue in Carousel's clowning, is that it leaves the puritans flat-footed.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

http://kink.com/values.php

may be a considerable surprise to some


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2009)

Jonti said:


> The great virtue in Carousel's clowning, is that it leaves the puritans flat-footed.



There's no great virtue (virtue??? as opposed to sin???) in what Carousel posts.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 26, 2009)

cesare said:


> Tbh, I think that the point now comes down to pointless polarisation of the two extremes of the argument.
> 
> Arguing for sex workers rights doesn't necessarily mean 'happy hookers'.
> 
> Arguing that trafficking exists even if hugely overplayed in the UK doesn't necessarily mean that trafficking is a myth.



A voice of reason.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

cesare said:


> There's no great virtue (virtue??? as opposed to sin???) in what Carousel posts.


A slightly different point


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2009)

TopCat said:


> A voice of reason.



Voice of impatience more like 

"Fuck's sake, you agree on more than you disagree on!!!! Why the fuck do you get arguing to the nth degree at the extreme ends of the argument!"


----------



## TopCat (Oct 26, 2009)

I think it's the personality of the participants.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2009)

TopCat said:


> I think it's the personality of the participants.




Ah yeah of course, none of this is rocket science eh. Sometimes you just step back and look at the humour/absurdity.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

I'm actually quite comfortable with terms like sin and virtue, despite being atheist.

Carousel is cheerfully nihilist; how can one object to nihilism, except by asserting its contrary, that there is value and virtue?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 26, 2009)

cesare said:


> Ah yeah of course, none of this is rocket science eh. Sometimes you just step back and look at the humour/absurdity.



It's the tendencies to misquote, to slur, to abuse and to bully that annoyed me.

That nearly everyone on the thread actually agrees in making life safer for sex workers and to clamp down on criminals forcing people to become sex workers seems to go unnoticed.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I'm actually quite comfortable with terms like sin and virtue, despite being atheist.
> 
> Carousel is cheerfully nihilist; how can one object to nihilism, except by asserting its contrary, that there is value and virtue?



I object to nihilism, but I know (think I know) why I object.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2009)

TopCat said:


> It's the tendencies to misquote, to slur, to abuse and to bully that annoyed me.
> 
> That nearly everyone on the thread actually agrees in making life safer for sex workers and to clamp down on criminals forcing people to become sex workers seems to go unnoticed.



Yep, the two extremes aren't that much apart  Why waste fucking energy when you're basically in agreement.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I've quoted the Act.


you'd already quoted the actg, ad infinitum.

But you failed to understand it.  As has been proven


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

TopCat said:


> It's the tendencies to misquote, to slur, to abuse and to bully that annoyed me.


but it's only one 'side' that you complain about.  bit hypocritical that.


have you got an 'agenda'?


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

Jonti said:


> the puritans


i refer you to happie chappies comment on your use of that phrase


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

cesare said:


> Maybe. I'm nearer the Carousel position on this, though presenting it in a different manner.



one that isn't completely fucking barking??


----------



## TopCat (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> but it's only one 'side' that you complain about.  bit hypocritical that.
> 
> 
> have you got an 'agenda'?



One 'side' did all the things I mention rather more than the other. You don't come out of this very well you know.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

whatever you say, dear.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> i refer you to happie chappies comment on your use of that phrase




He seems to have lost interest. Perhaps he understands what I mean.


> The puritans have the whip hand not because they can prove that tough laws will make life better for women, but because they have convinced governments that prostitution is intolerable by its very nature. What has tipped the balance is the globalisation of the sex business.


pwned again!


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

belboid said:


> you'd already quoted the actg, ad infinitum.
> 
> But you failed to understand it.  As has been proven


I think the point is slowly sinking in, thanks all the same.

And a lot of folks just look at the last few pages of a thread, so it's useful to post up what the uk government means when it talks about trafficking and prostitution in the uk.

You disapprove of prostitution, don't you? I guess I do too, in that I wouldn't want to promote it.  But I disapprove of the fact a prostitute cannot legally share a bag of chips with a friend.  I disapprove of the fact that a prostitute cannot legally accept a lift to work from a friend.  I think it does no good to hem the lives of prostitutes, their families and their friends in this way.

I want the law off the backs of people as far as possible, provided they do no harm to others.  What's wrong with that?


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

you really are fucking thick aren't you?

You don't understand the law, you got it wrong, no amount of repetition changes that fact.  The taxi driverf in the case you quuoted wasn't charged.

as for  'pwnage', just saying so doesn't make it so. You should at least try and show how your quote ties in with  _anything_ I've said.  You can't, because it doesn't.  You are a pthetic little work desperateely trying to cover up your real interest in this topic


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

Perhaps he didn't know they were prostitutes going to their place of work. It's not as if he was their friend or anything.

Are you a cult victim?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 26, 2009)

> desperateely trying to cover up your real interest in this topic


filth, innit


----------



## agricola (Oct 26, 2009)

Jonti,

Have you found anyone convicted under that section in the circumstances you have described?


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2009)

Yes.  But the fact that she was a madam who controlled the woman's work is _in no way_ important.


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

belboid said:


> you really are fucking thick aren't you?
> 
> You are a pthetic little work desperateely trying to cover up your real interest in this topic



Another dynamic and erudite contribution by the whore hater.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 27, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Dear oh dear....do keep it up cause you're really starting to make yourself look a complete and utter twunt.



Grandma Death finally limping home, exhausted, reduced to faint, empty, incoherent abuse.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

agricola said:


> Jonti,
> 
> Have you found anyone convicted under that section in the circumstances you have described?


As far as I can tell, despite its very broad provisions, very few convictions for trafficking under that section of the Act have been brought.  Fewer than a dozen, wasn't it? despite intense and coordinated efforts by the various police forces in Pentameters One and Two.

One can only hope a jury would refuse to convict if a charge were to be brought  in the circumstances I have described; but that would be the only hope.

Mainly it has serviced to allow the government to pretend that the country is in the throes of an epidemic of sexual slavery. It really doesn't look as if we are. This is not to deny that slavery and servitude do exist in "modern" britain, including in the sex trade. It is to assert that the extent of the problem has been systematically exaggerated, apparently as a matter of government policy.

It's yet another example of how this government uses dirty data to legislate morality.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

belboid said:


> Yes.  But the fact that she was a madam who controlled the woman's work is _in no way_ important.


If you read the statute in question, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, you will see that this is indeed the case, incredible as it seems. 

Here's Belinda Brooks-Gordon on the subject ... 





> The result of such hyper-inflation is policy that spreads resources too thinly sometimes missing the really needy; and over-zealous campaigning that criminalises clients, friends, maids and receptionists makes women less safe. When looking for a needle in haystack, it doesn't make sense to keep making the haystack bigger. We have reached a crisis of sorts. And at a time of crisis, when there is a desperation to find the right policy, then a return to the slow, steady grind of the academe is necessary.
> 
> Interestingly, the academic body of work generally takes account of sex workers' views and recognises that no one has campaigned harder for sex workers' rights than the sex workers themselves. They campaigned and argued in the Declaration for Rights of Sex Workers (pdf) to be treated as ordinary workers deserving of rights rather than helpless victims or evil wrong-doers. Sex workers have campaigned for trafficking laws here to resemble the Palermo protocol rather than the broad definitions in the Sex Offences Act 2003 which allows friends giving lifts to be prosecuted for "trafficking". Trafficking definitions need to align with the Palermo protocol so that the "three Fs" of fear, force or fraud are incorporated into legislation. Sex workers have also campaigned for "control" to be tightened up so the innocent maids and receptionists are not falsely imprisoned.


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> Another dynamic and erudite contribution by the whore hater.



aah, I lov the smell of rampant hypocrisy in the morning.


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2009)

Jonti said:


> If you read the statute in question, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, you will see that this is indeed the case, incredible as it seems.
> 
> Here's Belinda Brooks-Gordon on the subject ...



and yet again, jonti _cannot_ actually back up his belief, he can only restate it.

And then he posts another quote saying 'the law is bad', as tho it is saying something in support of his view, when it doesn't, it simply states that 'the law is bad' - something that, despite the protestations of a small clique of dimwits, _everyone on this thread has already agreed_.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

> As bad as those statistics are, the nature of many of the offences (acquaintance rapes especially) does make convictions very difficult to achieve, given the beyond-all-reasonable-doubt system where its usually one persons word against another and the difficulty of disproving a defence of consent.
> 
> That said, given the hoops that have to be jumped through in order to get a conviction for rape it is understandable to think that anyone convicted is actually guilty.



Yeah, having worked in rape crisis and having knowledge of difficult it is to get a conviction i would say the chances of a false conviction are next to zero

if that makes me a twat, so be it


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah, having worked in rape crisis and having knowledge of difficult it is to get a conviction i would say the chances of a false conviction are next to zero
> 
> if that makes me a twat, so be it



So the publicised instances of where someone was proved to have made up allegations and admitted this to be the case were what exactly? 

Your attitude reminds me of that amongst many social workers working 
in child protection in the 90's. There was an orthodoxy that women _never ever _sexually abused children and any focus or even discussion of the possibility took social workers minds off of male abusers and so raising the subject was tantamount to abuse in itself. 

This left sadly many children to continue to be on the end of abuse as it was not looked for and they were not believed.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

lol gtf calling me a social worker who tihnks women never sexually abuse kids, there's a difference between making up allegations and having someone convicted because of them, i never said nobody made allegations up and i actually know of a few people who did so, and pointing this out has made me get shit for it on here 

get to fuck you illiterate twat


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

It's not a laughing matter. I hope you are never ever on a jury.


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2009)

great retort their TC.

Fact is, given how difficult it is to get a convictin for rape, there really will be very very few convictions based on completel;y false allegations. It will happen, and it will be appaling, but it's thankfully rae, certainly when compared to he number of rapists who get away with it.


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

belboid said:


> aah, I lov the smell of rampant hypocrisy in the morning.



I bet you do


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

belboid said:


> great retort their TC.
> 
> Fact is, given how difficult it is to get a convictin for rape, there really will be very very few convictions based on completel;y false allegations. It will happen, and it will be appaling, but it's thankfully rae, certainly when compared to he number of rapists who get away with it.



I agree entirely belboid. But for the idiot above to assert that no convictions are ever unsafe is really a kick in the teeth for those who have been imprisoned as a result of false accusations.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

what belboid said, note that at no point did i deny that false allegations occurred, fuck off to "i hate white women" or whatever


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

except that i didn't say that, in fact i acknowledged that occasionally occurred. I don't see how pointing out difficult facts makes me an idiot


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

Having pointed out that I knew a few people at school who made up false allegations of rape (not reported to the police mind you on here) and having got laods of shit for it I find it highly fucking insulting how you would compare me to some idiot social worker, do oyu know what the budget of rape crisis is annaully, it is only about 110 000 pounds, compared to sometihng like the RSPCA which brings in millions of pounds per year, it is woefully underfunded partly due to the efforts of peiople like you

as for "guilty of being men" hahahaha like some people beat up "pakis" and are "guilty of being white"


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

but fucking feminists eh?? probably did 9/11 and the fucking holocaust as well


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

You are unhinged.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> what belboid said, note that at no point did i deny that false allegations occurred, fuck off to "i hate white women" or whatever



Quoted for bonkers ness


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Having pointed out that I knew a few people at school who made up false allegations of rape (not reported to the police mind you on here) and having got laods of shit for it I find it highly fucking insulting how you would compare me to some idiot social worker, do oyu know what the budget of rape crisis is annaully, it is only about 110 000 pounds, compared to sometihng like the RSPCA which brings in millions of pounds per year, it is woefully underfunded partly due to the efforts of peiople like you
> 
> as for "guilty of being men" hahahaha like some people beat up "pakis" and are "guilty of being white"



Again quoted for bonkers posterity


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> but fucking feminists eh?? probably did 9/11 and the fucking holocaust as well





More straw men in your posts that almost any thread I have ever read here.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

lol at you calling me bonkers.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

The original context of the post that seems to have provoked such a hissy fit from you was a post talking about how the mindset of some posters on this thread resembles a conspiracy theory 

and the reaction seems to prove my point nicely except that jazzz is a far nicer, calmer, and more intelligent poster than you.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

belboid said:


> and yet again, jonti _cannot_ actually back up his belief, he can only restate it.


This is like arguing with someone who knows the moves, but not how to use them. Cargo cult rationalism 

You dispute Belinda Brooks-Gordon is telling the truth, do you?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

belboid said:


> but it's only one 'side' that you complain about.  bit hypocritical that.


It's post modernism gawn maad!

We're talking about a matter of fact.  Does the uk government use the term "trafficking" to imply coercion, fraud and the like? Or not.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> The original context of the post that seems to have provoked such a hissy fit from you was a post talking about how the mindset of some posters on this thread resembles a conspiracy theory
> 
> and the reaction seems to prove my point nicely except that jazzz is a far nicer, calmer, and more intelligent poster than you.


This may be true fw; belboid should take lessons.  Even irrational cult victims do not need to slur and lie.


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2009)

oh dear, Jonti has lost the ability to read 

If he ever had it that is.


At least those tosspots who grotesquely under-estimated the levels of violence against sex workers and who refused to recognise the levels of self-harm amongst them have been forced to pretend they never did any such thing, that is, I suppose, a small gain for common sense.  Not that they'd have the basic honesty or decency to ever admit such a thing, but that's hardly surprising, all things considered..


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> but fucking feminists eh?? probably did 9/11 and the fucking holocaust as well



And now frogwoman joins grandma death, throwing smears around like a chimp hurling its own faeces.


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2009)

Jonti said:


> This may be true fw; belboid should take lessons.  Even irrational cult victims do not need to slur and lie.



oh the irony!


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

You are the piece of filth who called me a rapist.


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2009)

do you really want me to quote some of the comments you made before that, my dear little misogynist?

Get yerself back to punter.net, be careful not to hurt your 'reasearching' hand tho


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

I'd prefer it if you showed your face.

It's not true; it is a damaging and false allegation.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

It's a filthy way to behave, belboid.  You trivialise an important issue with such stupidity.


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2009)

[


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

belboid said:


> oh dear, Jonti has lost the ability to read
> 
> If he ever had it that is.
> 
> ...




This is becoming Orwellian. The whole point of the OP is the complete opposite. The deliberate over estimation of examples of abuse in order to further an anti prostitution agenda

It is you who consistently under estimate, deny or simply ignore the systematic human rights abuses caused to sex workers in the name of  "anti trafficking." Shame on you.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

False accusations of rape are funny to you?


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2009)

you really are thick aren't you?  Or is it you just think everryone else is thick so they'll believe your steaming pile of bullshit?

Probably the latter


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

I'm not usually considered thick, no.  And you?


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2009)

people will say owt if you pay 'em, I guess.

If anyone actually says anything of note n this thread i wil lreturn to it, but as I am sure al lwe will get is Jonti posting the same thing up again, without understanding it, and a few more weasley insults from the gang of misogynists, plus maybe dwyer pathetically trying to stir up a fight (or a bigger fight, one should probably say), then its really not worth expending any more energy on.  Shame, but fortunately such things aren't decided by internet arguments


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

belboid said:


> Get yerself back to punter.net, be careful not to hurt your 'reasearching' hand tho



Now belboid joins the sad defeated voices of Grandma death and frogwoman. 

Three broken, defeated moralists, reduced to muttering incoherent insults as they watch their empire of lies come crashing down.


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2009)

oh wel, one last one....as Jonti has already quoted from punter.net repeatedly - using at as a perfectly valid source of informatin - your attempt at an insult fails miserably dylans


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

belboid said:


> oh wel, one last one....as Jonti has already quoted from punter.net repeatedly - using at as a perfectly valid source of informatin - your attempt at an insult fails miserably dylans



and why do you think its not a valid source of information?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

belboid said:


> oh wel, one last one....as Jonti has already quoted from punter.net repeatedly - using at as a perfectly valid source of informatin - your attempt at an insult fails miserably dylans



The Poppy project use punternet regulary. They used it this year to compile a report on the numbers of massage parlours, brothels and the like. Not that they credited punternet for the information.


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> and why do you think its not a valid source of information?



you were the one who said it was an insult, thicky


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

belboid said:


> you were the one who said it was an insult, thicky



No the insult is when you call people rapists or accuse them of being whore mongers with a hidden agenda or any of the other myriad of smears you have flung around like shit on here.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> And now frogwoman joins grandma death, throwing smears around like a chimp hurling its own faeces.



wtf? that wasn't a smear you fool, it was a joke


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

belboid said:


> thicky



I rest my case


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> wtf? that wasn't a smear you fool, it was a joke



So are you


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> So are you



last in?


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> last in?



I think this thread has officially run its course, dont you?

So I will offer you my hand and wish you well.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

Jonti said:


> False accusations of rape are funny to you?



Maybe they'd be less funny if they happened a little bit more often, like, say as often as real rape, that and if the people who bitch about them constantly weren't the kind of people you wouldn't want to meet on a dark night


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Maybe they'd be less funny if they happened a little bit more often, like, say as often as real rape, that and if the people who bitch about them constantly weren't the kind of people you wouldn't want to meet on a dark night



What an unpleasant person you are.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

Who would that be, froggie? Anyone in particular?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

Insults, straw men, more insults, abuse, it still does not detract from the reality that for political purposes, a great big lie regarding the number of sex slaves working in the UK was trotted out and used to instigate a huge police operation that found negliable evidence of any sex slaves or people controlling or imprisoning such people.

Worse, the police operation lead to the arrests and deportations of sex workers which hardly improved their circumstances.

They is loads wrong with sex work and the sex trade but this shit was close to evil.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

belboid said:


> do you really want me to quote some of the comments you made before that, my dear little misogynist?
> 
> Get yerself back to punter.net, be careful not to hurt your 'reasearching' hand tho


If you can, please do so.

We all make mistakes; I'd be happy to have any like that pointed out to me.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> Now belboid joins the sad defeated voices of Grandma death and frogwoman.
> 
> Three broken, defeated moralists, reduced to muttering incoherent insults as they watch their empire of lies come crashing down.



Flowery language


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> And now frogwoman joins grandma death, throwing smears around like a chimp hurling its own faeces.


uhhh, no, actually


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

TopCat said:


> What an unpleasant person you are.


I don't think fw's remark was directed at anyone posting here, although I can see it would be easy to read it that way.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I don't think fw's remark was directed at anyone posting here, although I can see it would be easy to read it that way.



it wasn't, it was a general observation.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I don't think fw's remark was directed at anyone posting here, although I can see it would be easy to read it that way.



It's the views expressed that make me shudder. False accusations of rape being funny and that. I could go but it's all too depressing.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

Froggie's views have never caused me to shudder, but then again, I've never asked her what she thinks of dwarf porn.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

you're right it isnt' funny, what's funny is to watch people bitching about it every time the subject is brought up, whereas the problem is actually so miniscule that rapists only have a 6% rate of conviction, it'd be like an imam in saudi arabia complaining that there are too many feminists, or someone living on a settlement in israel complaining that everyone he knows supports the palestinians


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Froggie's views have never caused me to shudder, but then again, I've never asked her what she thinks of dwarf porn.



Thank you.


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> you're right it isnt' funny,




No rape isn't funny at all. From Cambodia

_"According to a 2006 USAID-funded study that drew on interviews with 1,000 sex workers and sixty police officers, approximately a third of the freelance sex workers surveyed had been raped by a policeman in the past year; a third had been gang-raped by police. As for sex workers who worked in brothels but also accepted clients outside, 57 percent had been raped by a lone policeman; nearly half had been gang-raped by law enforcement. Fifty percent of freelancers and nearly 75 percent of the brothel group had been beaten by police in the past year."_

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/...st-sex-trafficking-why-doesnt-anything-change

_"a representative of the (local sex workers )collective argued that the sweeps were an unsurprising consequence of US pressure on trafficking"_

"Anti traffickers" should be very proud of their accomplishments


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

you keep posting examples of police brutality but it doesn't prove trafficking is a myth, nor does it disprove any of the facts posted, and it doesn't address the fact that the ngo's dealing with the problem at least where i am working usually do NOT refer to the police unless it is requested 

there are many different groups opposed to trafficking, posting examples of rapist policemen in cambodia isn't relevant i'm afraid because police brutality is so well documented there as a phenomenon anyway and frequently the police in these countries are so corupt that they are actively involved in trafficking themselves

they would find excuses, in other words, to do this shit anyway. as far as i know iran doesn't have big problem with trafficking (and are unlikely to listen to the US on the issue of all countries) yet the police over there are still not averse to a bit of rape


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

You're very welcome.

TC, things may be more complicated than you imagine. Notice that fw silently accepted what I said about uk domestic law back here.

There's a reason for that; it's that she knows what she's talking about.


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> you keep posting examples of police brutality but it doesn't prove trafficking is a myth, nor does it disprove any of the facts posted, and it doesn't address the fact that the ngo's dealing with the problem at least where i am working usually do NOT refer to the police unless it is requested
> 
> there are many different groups opposed to trafficking, posting examples of rapist policemen in cambodia isn't relevant i'm afraid because police brutality is so well documented there as a phenomenon anyway and frequently the police in these countries are so corupt that they are actively involved in trafficking themselves



So you deny that the TIP has a direct and documented responsibilty for the abuses that Cambodian sex workers have suffered since Cambodia was forced to enact "anti trafficking" legislation in 2006?

I will put it another way. do you accept that  sex workers in Cambodia are suffering significant human rights abuses as a direct result of that country enacting "anti- trafficking" legislation in 1996. Legislation that was forced on them by TIP?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

and they didn't suffer abuse before that? before the trafficking legislation the rapist policemen left them alone?


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> and they didn't suffer abuse before that? before the trafficking legislation the rapist policemen left them alone?



That is not what I asked you. Has there been a significant increase in human rights abuses since 1996 ?

But to forestall you ducking the question again I will answer you. Of course they did. Prostitutes in Cambodia are poor and powerless. Their profession exists in the twilight. They are looked down on by society. They are extremely vulnerable to abuse. The fact remains that their situation has deteriorated significantly since TIP enforced "anti trafficking" legislation was enacted in 1996. Do you accept that or not?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

Jonti said:


> You're very welcome.
> 
> TC, things may be more complicated than you imagine. Notice that fw silently accepted what I said about uk domestic law back here.
> 
> There's a reason for that; it's that she knows what she's talking about.



I can't speak for the UK but I will say i highly doubt that simply giving someone a lift would be enoguh to convict them of trafficking - charging them with it may be a different matter


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> That is not what I asked you. Has there been a significant increase in human rights abuses since 1996 ?



cambodia used to be the country that was infamous, not just in britain but throughout the world, for gary glitter type sex tourism and child prostitution, so maybe now the human rights abuses are still there but just taking a different form? 

I don't doubt that the laws enacted in cambodia, in nepal (forbidding women under 30 from going abroad without a man iirc) and elsewhere in asia ostensibly to fight trafficking are having a bad effect, and have said so throughout the thread. 

the problem is not that laws against trafficking exist, it is with the way they are written, the activities criminalised and the way they actually fit the government's agenda rather than the people. the idea that trafficking doesn't exist thus we should abolish all laws relating to it as absurd and dangerous


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> cambodia used to be the country that was infamous, not just in britain but throughout the world, for gary glitter type sex tourism and child prostitution, so maybe now the human rights abuses are still there but just taking a different form?
> 
> I don't doubt that the laws enacted in cambodia, in nepal (forbidding women under 30 from going abroad without a man iirc) and elsewhere in asia ostensibly to fight trafficking are having a bad effect, and have said so throughout the thread.
> 
> the problem is not that laws against trafficking exist, it is with the way they are written, the activities criminalised and the way they actually fit the government's agenda rather than the people. the idea that trafficking doesn't exist thus we should abolish all laws relating to it as absurd and dangerous



Anti trafficking laws are used to criminalise sex workers under the velvet language of rescuing mythical victims. The entire "victim" discourse is central to the anti trafficking agenda. It is a central facet not a superfluous and unfortunate by product which can be tinkered with. 

The entire discourse leads to abuse it needs to be seen for what it is, a lie, and replaced with a discourse of rights that sees sex work as legitimate work and sex workers as legitimate workers.Then and only then can sex workers be empowered to defend their rights.


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

Someone should tell USAID and MTV. Cus they don't seem to have noticed. A second bill was enacted in 2008 and applauded by the US government. Even MTV are on board.

[I I]n April 2008, the government of Cambodia passed an anti-trafficking bill which outlawed prostitution and classified all sex workers as a victim of trafficking. This bill was sponsored by USAID. The government’s motivation behind the bill was to avoid being considered a tier 3 trafficking country, which would bar it from receiving millions of dollars in financial aid from the US government. Women accused of being prostitutes are illegally detained and sent to ‘rehabilitation’ centres where gross human rights violations are heaped upon their unlawful detention such as: deprivation of medical care, rape, torture and starvation. Detainees of the rehabilitation centres are ‘taught’ to sew and become sweatshop/garment factory workers, where 72 hour work-weeks are the norm and salaries are equivalent to 36 USD a month. 
[/I]

http://swannet.org/node/1521


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> cambodia used to be the country that was infamous, not just in britain but throughout the world, for gary glitter type sex tourism and child prostitution, *so maybe now the human rights abuses are still there but just taking a different form*?



There really is no question that major human rights abuses are occuring as a direct result of US sponsored anti - trafficking initiatives.  I find it quite offensive that you seek to claim they have just taken a different form.


----------



## agricola (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I can't speak for the UK but I will say i highly doubt that simply giving someone a lift would be enoguh to convict them of trafficking - charging them with it may be a different matter



That is true, which is why Jonti is unable to point to when that has actually happened.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I can't speak for the UK but I will say i highly doubt that simply giving someone a lift would be enoguh to convict them of trafficking - charging them with it may be a different matter


I'm happy to agree that a prostitute's friend should be free to give her a lift to work, without the fear of a possible prosecution.

The words of the statute are quite clear, and I've quoted Belinda Brooks-Gordon as agreeing with this take, here ... 





> the broad definitions in the Sex Offences Act 2003 which allows friends giving lifts to be prosecuted for "trafficking". Trafficking definitions need to align with the Palermo protocol so that the "three Fs" of fear, force or fraud are incorporated into legislation


There's no room, nor any cause, for the slightest doubt on this point.


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2009)

Jonti said:


> There's no room, nor any cause, for the slightest doubt on this point.


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> cambodia used to be the country that was infamous, not just in britain but throughout the world, for gary glitter type sex tourism and child prostitution,



It's interesting that you mention those two subjects. Glitter,  Paul Gadd (Glitter) and child sex tourists. 

In over a decade. I never saw a child prostitute. I went out. I did the bars. Knew all the working girls. Not one. 

That is not to say child sexual exploitation doesn't exist. It does. In a poor country like Cambodia everything is available for a price when people are broken and desperately poor. But the image of a kiddy whore in every bar is a false stereotype. 

Child sexual exploitation exists but anyone  interested in this kind of activity would have enter a pretty sleazy world very carefully to find it. The kiddy brothel is pretty much a myth in Cambodia. 

Cambodia actually has pretty severe laws in regards to child sexual abuse. . A conviction for having sex with a minor carries 20 years in Prison. It has teeth but it is aimed exclusively at westerners and there are several western child sex tourists serving serious sentences in Prey Sar prison. Not one Cambodian. 
The term paedophile is used exclusively to describe foreigners. 

A much wider sexual abuse problem in Cambodia is domestic child abuse. Family abuse. Uncles raping nieces etc. Evidence suggest it's enormous as is domestic rape of family members. it is by far the largest  arena of child sexual abuse in Cambodia and it receives little attention from the crusading "anti- traffickers" who are far more interested in Gary Glitter and "rescuing" consenting sex workers against their will. 


Speaking of Gary Glitter. 
 I never met the unfornate mr Gadd but I knew his landlord quite well. 

 His landlord considered him an unfortunate fool but called him a friend and seemed to have genuine affection for him. 

Again and again he emphasised to me that Glitter never committed a single offence in Cambodia. Nor was he even suspected. He was hounded out by the tabloid press and Western NGO's. Many of them from "anti-trafficking" brigade.

I know nothing about his offences in Vietnam.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 27, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Grandma Death finally limping home, exhausted, reduced to faint, empty, incoherent abuse.



Fuck off dwyer.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> And now frogwoman joins grandma death, throwing smears around like a chimp hurling its own faeces.



...oh the irony.....what a moron.....


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...oh the irony.....what a moron.....



And you don't see the irony of your last two posts consisting of nothing but abuse?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> And you don't see the irony of your last two posts consisting of nothing but abuse?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> And you don't see the irony of your last two posts consisting of nothing but abuse?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 27, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


>



...your work here is done.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...your work here is done.


and bloody good work it was too


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...your work here is done.



So's yours. No one to "rescue" here.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 27, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> and bloody good work it was too



...yes....a case of light blue touch paper and stand well back.

Threads of this ilk always run and run and run until everyone runs out of steam-with knobheads like dwyer attempting to keep it running with his 'eleventh hour' trolling.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> So's yours. No one to "rescue" here.



...yes yes dylans.....*yawn*


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> So's yours. No one to "rescue" here.



bollocks


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> Speaking of Gary Glitter.
> I never met the unfornate mr Gadd but I knew his landlord quite well.
> 
> His landlord considered him an unfortunate fool but called him a friend and seemed to have genuine affection for him.
> ...



Are you saying that Gadd isn't a cunt?


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> bollocks


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 27, 2009)

cesare said:


> Are you saying that Gadd isn't a cunt?



No he's a victim of anti trafficking legislation. Free Gadd now!


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

cesare said:


> Are you saying that Gadd isn't a cunt?



I'm saying that Gadd never committed an offence in Cambodia. Do I have to qualify that by calling him a cunt?

Ok. Gadd is a cunt who never committed an offence in Cambodia.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> I'm saying that Gadd never committed an offence in Cambodia.



*pulls up a deckchair and watches as the thread picks back up again*


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> I'm saying that Gadd never committed an offence in Cambodia. Do I have to qualify that by calling him a cunt?
> 
> Ok. Gadd is a cunt who never committed an offence in Cambodia.



He is a fucking nonce!


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2009)

TopCat said:


> He is a fucking nonce!



Yeah!

Dylans, are you saying he isn't a fucking nonce?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2009)

cesare said:


> Yeah!
> 
> Dylans, are you saying he isn't a fucking nonce?



not since he was stopped from molesting children. now he's a non-fucking nonce


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> not since he was stopped from molesting children. now he's a non-fucking nonce


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> *pulls up a deckchair and watches as the thread picks back up again*



It is so fucking predictable that you leap with glee on my mention of Gadd . It shows how utterly uninterested in the real issue of child sexual abuse in Cambodia which is the subject of my post. 

So if you want to get hysterical about Gadd thats fine, we can discuss it but you owe me the respect of reading my post in full. 

I am saying that child sexual abuse in Cambodia is presented as an issue of bogey men and monsters of which Gadd is the poster boy. When in fact it is an enormous domestic problem. Child child sexual abuse is endemic in Cambodia but it is almost entirely domestic.  Abuse within the family. What evidence there is suggests it is a huge social problem.


But this doesnt fit the discourse. So it's ignored by those very agencies who claim to be concerned with child sexual abuse. 

All the attention, all the money, the entire focus of Western attention is on searching for monster tourists who are a very small part of the real problem.

This focus on evil monsters  fits in with this discourse of "traffick" very comfortably .The image of child sex as commerce.  It makes for a compelling image but  the real problem is a domestic social problem within the family and has very little to do with commerce or "traffick"

It happens  and where it happens I hope they throw the book at them. Cambodia has effective laws on this and there have been successful prosecutions of foreign child abusers. I applaud them but they are not the real story which is ignored because it doesn't fit the agenda.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 27, 2009)

Almost all child sexual abuse takes place within the family or people known to the family.


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

cesare said:


> Yeah!
> 
> Dylans, are you saying he isn't a fucking nonce?



I'm suggesting that you're a fucking idiot


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Almost all child sexual abuse takes place within the family or people known to the family.



That's what must really hurt, the abuse of trust from a "loved one".


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> I'm suggesting that you're a fucking idiot



She ain't that at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> I'm suggesting that you're a fucking idiot


i'm suggesting you're more akin to the substance scraped from soles of shoes after sheepdog trials.


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm suggesting you're more akin to the substance scraped from soles of shoes after sheepdog trials.



For saying what exactly?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> For saying what exactly?




fucking read your quote in my post


----------



## dylans (Oct 27, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> fucking read your quote in my post



I did. I have no fucking idea what your on about. You communicate with smilies and one word curses. So if there is something I have posted that you feel so strongly about that you can effectively call me "scum" I would appreciate it if you fucking explain what it is, please.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2009)

dylans said:


> I did. I have no fucking idea what your on about. You communicate with smilies and one word curses. So if there is something I have posted that you feel so strongly about that you can effectively call me "scum" I would appreciate it if you fucking explain what it is, please.


your unfounded attack on cesare 

oh - and it was shit, not scum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2009)

but it was only a suggestion


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2009)

I have had enough of this. Concepts like justice, liberty, equality and freedom are getting buried in a flood of shite.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 27, 2009)

TopCat said:


> I have had enough of this. Concepts like justice, liberty, equality and freedom are getting buried in a flood of shite.



It's like the French Revolution all over again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2009)

TopCat said:


> I have had enough of this. Concepts like justice, liberty, equality and freedom are getting buried in a flood of shite.



& fraternity


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

dylans said:


> I'm suggesting that you're a fucking idiot



On which grounds?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

> Child child sexual abuse is endemic in Cambodia but it is almost entirely domestic. Abuse within the family. What evidence there is suggests it is a huge social problem.
> 
> But this doesnt fit the discourse. So it's ignored by those very agencies who claim to be concerned with child sexual abuse.


The same dynamic takes place in the UK. Stranger danger is hyped to the skies, but the bulk of abuse takes place within the family framework


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

What's going on is that "badly-drafted" anti-trafficking laws are used to criminalise sex workers under the velvet language of rescuing mythical victims*. Laws (like those in the UK and many other countries that that ignore the three F's of force, fraud and fear) are used to assert that all sex-workers are inevitably victims.  

This "victim" discourse is central to the puritan agenda, the agenda of those who think prostitution is unacceptable by its very nature.  It is a central facet of their strategy, enthusiastically carried forward by useful fools. But it is a lie. 

It needs to be replaced with a discourse of rights that sees sex work as legitimate work and sex workers as legitimate workers.  The way to protect folks is by respecting their rights, not by taking them away.

* of course there are real victims too.  And the puritan refusal to acknowledge the difference between the two groups means police efforts are unfocused. It's a double-whammy of picking on the wrong people, while letting the real crooks off the hook


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> The same dynamic takes place in the UK. Stranger danger is hyped to the skies, but the bulk of abuse takes place within the family framework



Similar with rape.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

That's my understanding too; that most rapists are not strangers pouncing on a woman in the street, although that does happen.  Seems most rapists are known, even trusted, by the women they attack.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> That's my understanding too; that most rapists are not strangers pouncing on a woman in the street, although that does happen.  Seems most rapists are known, even trusted, by the women they attack.



Yes. Though I'd say that (misplaced) trust is the key element, and possibly another contributory factor to under-reporting. And that men get raped too, possibly even more under-reported.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

Yea, anal rape of men by other men seems a major feature of USA prison life, and probably elsewhere too.  It's by no means unusual to read people vindictively wishing it on someone with whom they disagree.  We are not an altogether nice species, it seems to me


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Yea, anal rape of men by other men seems a major feature of USA prison life, and probably elsewhere too.  It's by no means unusual to read people vindictively wishing it on someone with whom they disagree.  We are not an altogether nice species, it seems to me



Yep, that prison aspect ain't nice (and also works the other way with female prisons, though you don't seem to see the same vicarious/vindictive wishing it on females to the same degree). I was thinking of the more mundane though. Rape happening to (sometimes, but not always, homosexual) men at home.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

I find it very hard to get my head around the fusion of sex and violence that is rape.

I'd say puritans who think prostitution is rape haven't a clue about the reality of rape; but I know that's not always true.  Some people who take that position have been driven into it by utter bloody fury at the extent of sexual abuse.  

I guess, to folks coming at things from that angle, a woman being paid for sex looks  like the start of a dehumanising slide into coercion.  To me, a refusal to allow a woman to take money from a sex partner (sounds really weird put that way, doesn't it?) is just the start of a discourse that presents women as unfit to make decisions for themselves.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I find it very hard to get my head around the fusion of sex and violence that is rape.
> 
> I'd say puritans who think prostitution is rape haven't a clue about the reality of rape; but I know that's not always true.  Some people who take that position have been driven into it by utter bloody fury at the extent of sexual abuse.
> 
> I guess, to folks coming at things from that angle, a woman being paid for sex looks  like the start of a dehumanising slide into coercion.  To me, a refusal to allow a woman to take money from a sex partner (sounds really weird put that way, doesn't it?) is just the start of a discourse that presents women as unfit to make decisions for themselves.



I sort of get what you mean (I think). But I don't see everyday rape as a fusion of sex and violence. I think it's a fusion of sex and coercion which may, or may not, entail violence. Once there's overt violence, it becomes more clearcut and more likely to be reported? 

"A woman being paid for sex" sounds very different to "a woman choosing to sell sex".

And it comes back to why s/he chooses to sell sex. And if s/he's choosing at all. Or just making the best of limited options.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 28, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...yes....a case of light blue touch paper and stand well back.
> 
> Threads of this ilk always run and run and run until everyone runs out of steam-with knobheads like dwyer attempting to keep it running with his 'eleventh hour' trolling.



Grandma Death's futile but strangely moving attempt to free a limb from the pile of debris into which his argument has collapsed.

I've seen some one-sided affairs in my time on U75, but dylans vs Grandma and Belboid sets a new standard.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 28, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> *pulls up a deckchair and watches as the thread picks back up again*



Believe me, there is no need to call our attention to your lascivious and salacious attitude to these matters.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

> And it comes back to why s/he chooses to sell sex. And if s/he's choosing at all. Or just making the best of limited options.


And that neatly brings us back to the question of whether the selling of sexual favours should be considered essentially different from other forms of work.  

But even if the tack is taken here, and even if a woman is trying to make the best of limited options, it seems to me it is of no help to her at all to hem that option with all sorts of legal restrictions that affect friends and family as well as business.

Prohibition just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Grandma Death's futile but strangely moving attempt to free a limb from the pile of debris into which his argument has collapsed.
> 
> I've seen some one-sided affairs in my time on U75, but dylans vs Grandma and Belboid sets a new standard.


True dat.

As does dylans vs froggie and cesare, but in the other direction!


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Prohibition just doesn't make sense to me.



It makes a lot of sense to me, as does prohibition of drugs.  

Of course the aim of prohibition is not to prevent prostitution or drug abuse, which everyone knows cannot be prevented by legal means.  The aim of prohibition is to criminalize prostitutes and their clients, and drug dealers and their clients.  The accompanying moral panics provide excuses for authoritarianism on both domestic and international fronts.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 28, 2009)

Jonti said:


> What's going on is that "badly-drafted" anti-trafficking laws are used to criminalise sex workers under the velvet language of rescuing mythical victims*. Laws (like those in the UK and many other countries that that ignore the three F's of force, fraud and fear) are used to assert that all sex-workers are inevitably victims.
> 
> This "victim" discourse is central to the puritan agenda, the agenda of those who think prostitution is unacceptable by its very nature.  It is a central facet of their strategy, enthusiastically carried forward by useful fools. But it is a lie.
> 
> ...



Word.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> Similar with rape.



Yup.





Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> And that men get raped too, possibly even more under-reported.



Yup.




Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> And it comes back to why s/he chooses to sell sex. And if s/he's choosing at all. Or just making the best of limited options.



Options?

Real options?

Heh!

I wish.



And there are hundreds of millions who have fewer options than I.




Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 28, 2009)

dylans said:


> It is so fucking predictable that you leap with glee on my mention of Gadd.. *It shows how utterly uninterested in the real issue of child sexual abuse in Cambodia which is the subject of my post. *




Really...you drew all that from one line.....fuck me...Urban has a new Sherlock Holmes.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 28, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Grandma Death's futile but strangely moving attempt to free a limb from the pile of debris into which his argument has collapsed.
> 
> I've seen some one-sided affairs in my time on U75, but dylans vs Grandma and Belboid sets a new standard.



Fuck off dwyer!


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 28, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Believe me, there is no need to call our attention to your lascivious and salacious attitude to these matters.



Fuck off Dwyer!


----------



## dylans (Oct 28, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Fuck off Dwyer!



fuck off Grandma


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)




----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Fuck off Dwyer!


Demand to know about my sex life again, grandma. Y'know it gets me moist.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 28, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Believe me, there is no need to call our attention to your lascivious and salacious attitude to these matters.


Or better yet, tell me your fantasies about what I do ~ they get me really tingling


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Demand to know about my sex life again, grandma. Y'know it gets me moist.



Are you really certain that you wish to hear Grandma Death's darkest fantasies?  I hope you have a strong stomach.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 29, 2009)

Why don't you lot meet for a hot tub together, drink some fizzy wine, enjoy a jacuzzi, then maybe get a massage.  Or perhaps go continue this line of debate in a sauna, sweat out all the anger and testosterone and pent-up sexual tension, sweat it all out through your pores whilst having a cold beer and making friends, real friends with each other.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 29, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> Why don't you lot meet for a hot tub together, drink some fizzy wine, enjoy a jacuzzi, then maybe get a massage.  Or perhaps go continue this line of debate in a sauna, sweat out all the anger and testosterone and pent-up sexual tension, sweat it all out through your pores whilst having a cold beer and making friends, real friends with each other.




Nah!




Group hug I reckon - but _no fiddling_ eh?




And *no lifts anywhere*!






Blessings all.





Woof


----------



## dylans (Oct 29, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Nah!
> 
> 
> Group hug I reckon - but _no fiddling_ eh?
> ...




Yeah I'll join that. I'd like extend my hand to my opponents in peace.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2009)




----------



## shygirl (Oct 30, 2009)

Please see below joint response from agencies supporting trafficked women to guardian following Nick Davies' report.

Nick Davies’ article on sex trafficking (Sex, lies and trafficking – the anatomy of a moral panic, 20 Oct) was thoroughly misleading.

It is a mistake to judge the extent of this crime by citing the number of convictions secured against traffickers.

Human trafficking is a notoriously difficult crime to bring to a successful prosecution. Davies’ article fails to acknowledge the multiple barriers victims face in approaching support services, let alone the authorities. Until victims feel safe and protected, and police, immigration, social and health services, people at all stages of the criminal justice process and members of the public fully understand the nature and complexities of human trafficking in all its forms, it will always be difficult to secure convictions. 

As organisations working with victims of trafficking, we see the human devastation caused by this gross abuse of human rights on a daily basis. Perhaps Mr Davies felt it unnecessary to include their voices in his analysis of the issue, but to our ears it was a deafening omission. His article has done a grave disservice to all victims of trafficking. Not only has he discredited their experiences, he is in danger of jeopardising the little existing support available to them.


Debbie Ariyo, AFRUCA
Adam Weiss, AIRE Centre
Tim Hancock, Amnesty International UK
Jalna Hanmer, Anneli Project
Aidan McQuade, Anti-Slavery International
Raggi Kotak, Anti Trafficking Legal Project (ATLeP)
Nasim Minhas, Ashiana
Maurice Wren, Asylum Aid
Mutale Merrill, BAWSO
Denise Marshall, Eaves
Chris Beddoe, ECPAT
Clare Lazarus, Emma Humphreys Memorial Prize
Finn Mackay, Feminist Coalition against Prostitution
Keith Best, Immigration Advisory Service (IAS)
Nusha Yonkova, Immigration Council of Ireland
Marai Larasi, Imkaan
Harriet Wistrich, Justice for Women
Camilla Brown, Kalayaan
Karen Ingala-Smith, nia Project 
Rachel Cooling, Northern Refugee Centre
Anna van Heeswijk, OBJECT
Katie Russell, Rape Crisis England and Wales
Sarah Cutler, Refugee Council
Cate Briddick, Rights of Women
Caroline Slocock, Refugee & Migrant Justice
Ann Hamilton, TARA
Di Martin, Trust
Akima Thomas, Women and Girls Network


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 30, 2009)

Can't you see though, all those people just HATE WOMEN.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 30, 2009)

And the director of amnesty int'l is a man. He should just go back to playing with his garden tools  a man's place is in the shed after all.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 30, 2009)

I think soemone needs to ask all those people whether they got a mysterious phone call telling them not to come to work on 9/11


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 30, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Can't you see though, all those people just HATE WOMEN.



No, no, no - you don't understand. They're just puritans you see, hitching a ride on the "victim mentality" gravy train.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 30, 2009)

re: stranger danger, it's also worth emphasising that the majority of trafficking victims (of ANY type whether that is for forced labour or prostitution or anything) end up being recruited by someone they know, who may or may not be aware of whats actually going on 

for example, there was a documentary made about a moldovan guy whose wife went to turkey with his best friend in order to sell some stuff (IIRC) she ended up being sold by him into prostitution, the programme was about his attempts to find her and get her back. it was one of the most shocking tv programmes i've ever seen


----------



## shygirl (Oct 30, 2009)

Such ignorance.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

shygirl said:


> Debbie Ariyo, AFRUCA
> Adam Weiss, AIRE Centre
> Tim Hancock, Amnesty International UK
> Jalna Hanmer, Anneli Project
> ...



Puritans...burn the puritans!

Trafficking is a myth! Gary Glitter is innocent!


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 30, 2009)

Anecdotes from those "working in the field" will inevitabley provide succour to the "traficking" agenda.

Those working with chaotic drug users will inevitabley mostly come into contact with prostitutes who are chaotic drug users.

Those who take a more evidence-based approach seem to have exposed the bullshit.

It's no wonder that those in the first two catergories are up in arms when evidence-based, statistical analysis contradicts their notions.

Just look at what's blown up in the "cannabis debate" over the last few days.


Such is life.



Woof


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 30, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Anecdotes from those "working in the field" will inevitabley provide succour to the "traficking" agenda.



wtf is this supposed to mean?


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2009)

The final Nick Mai report is out.  Mai, as I'm sure everyone will recall, is the academic whose research has been at the forefront of the exposure of the gross exageration of the amount of trafficking. 

In it, he writes:

"Only a minority, amounting approximately to 6 per cent of female interviewees, felt that they had been deceived and forced into selling sex in circumstances within which they had no share of control or consent."

Six per cent blows a massive hole in the governments moralistic agenda, and I would stand whole square behind the meeting tomorrow to oppose clauses 14, 16, 17 & 21 of Policing and Crime Bill, but it is still a pretty fucking high number, representing a significant number of women who it would be fair to say were _trafficked_ within any normal meaning of the word.


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Those who take a more evidence-based approach seem to have exposed the bullshit.
> 
> It's no wonder that those in the first two catergories are up in arms when evidence-based, statistical analysis contradicts their notions.



woops.  Facts wrong again, never mind.


----------



## dylans (Oct 30, 2009)

shygirl said:


> It is a mistake to judge the extent of this crime by citing the number of convictions secured against traffickers.
> k



No they judge the extent of the crime by the number of "rescued" sex workers. Sex workers like these

_ 28 women were "rescued". Some of the women were not employees of that brothel but were simply visiting friends when they were "rescued". Women were transported by Trafcord and the police against their will to a Public Welfare Boys Home. Nineteen women were locked inside and have remained there for the past 31 days. _

*A report by Empower Chiang Mai on the human rights violations women are subjected to when "rescued" by anti-trafficking groups who employ methods using deception, force and coercion*

http://www.nswp.org/mobility/mpower-0306.html


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> It's no wonder that those in the first two catergories are up in arms when evidence-based, statistical analysis contradicts their notions.



Yes all of these people are wrong:

Debbie Ariyo, AFRUCA
Adam Weiss, AIRE Centre
Tim Hancock, Amnesty International UK
Jalna Hanmer, Anneli Project
Aidan McQuade, Anti-Slavery International
Raggi Kotak, Anti Trafficking Legal Project (ATLeP)
Nasim Minhas, Ashiana
Maurice Wren, Asylum Aid
Mutale Merrill, BAWSO
Denise Marshall, Eaves
Chris Beddoe, ECPAT
Clare Lazarus, Emma Humphreys Memorial Prize
Finn Mackay, Feminist Coalition against Prostitution
Keith Best, Immigration Advisory Service (IAS)
Nusha Yonkova, Immigration Council of Ireland
Marai Larasi, Imkaan
Harriet Wistrich, Justice for Women
Camilla Brown, Kalayaan
Karen Ingala-Smith, nia Project
Rachel Cooling, Northern Refugee Centre
Anna van Heeswijk, OBJECT
Katie Russell, Rape Crisis England and Wales
Sarah Cutler, Refugee Council
Cate Briddick, Rights of Women
Caroline Slocock, Refugee & Migrant Justice
Ann Hamilton, TARA
Di Martin, Trust
Akima Thomas, Women and Girls Network

These are people that (and I quote)....'see the human devastation caused by this gross abuse of human rights on a daily basis.'......


Yet the 'statistical analysis' _must_ be right and their 'notions' wrong eh.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 30, 2009)

dylans said:


> *A report by Empower Chiang Mai on the human rights violations women are subjected to when "rescued" by anti-trafficking groups who employ methods using deception, force and coercion*
> 
> http://www.nswp.org/mobility/mpower-0306.html



That link makes a good case against some anti-trafficking groups but it certainly doesn't back up your 'trafficking is a myth' argument:

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva]_The primary goal of prosecuting traffickers must be altered to a primary goal of assisting trafficked women and children. We propose that if trafficked women and children (whether trafficked or not) are continually rescued and assisted, the use of trafficked women and children will become unprofitable and entertainment places will only wish to employ those women who are over 18 years, informed and willing to work.__[/FONT]_

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva]_Currently women who work in entertainment places have their own methods of assisting trafficked women, those being forced to work, and those under 18 years. Anti-trafficking dialogue and groups have yet to consider us as anti-trafficking workers and human rights defenders even though the numbers of women and children we assist far out way the handful women and children serviced by the recognized anti-trafficking groups. Instead we are ourselves caught up in the "rescues and repatriation". The latest stance from the USA government calling us "inappropriate partners" is just the latest example among many of the way we are ignored and our expertise sidelined.__[/FONT]_


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 30, 2009)

dylans said:


> No they judge the extent of the crime by the number of "rescued" sex workers. Sex workers like these
> 
> _ 28 women were "rescued". Some of the women were not employees of that brothel but were simply visiting friends when they were "rescued". Women were transported by Trafcord and the police against their will to a Public Welfare Boys Home. Nineteen women were locked inside and have remained there for the past 31 days. _
> 
> ...



did you actually read your own link down to the end of the page?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> did you actually read your own link down to the end of the page?



Dylans doesn't do reading-that's quite evident in his/her contributions thus far.


----------



## dylans (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Yes all of these people are wrong:
> 
> .
> :



All these people are wrong. They havent been kidnapped by "anti-trafficking NGOs. They havent been gang raped by police. They havent had their places of safety closed down.They haven't been robbed of all their possessions. They haven't been held in detention camps against their will. 
They are "victims" they just don't know it. 

The girl speaking English, in the black T shirt , is my sister in law by the way.

http://www.channels.com/episodes/show/3402318/No-Exit-News-MTV-and-the-trafficking-law-in-Cambodia

http://www.nswp.org/safety/ashok-0211.html

http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/us-anti-sex-trafficking-law-causes-police-violence-in-cambodia

http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/whats-wrong-with-the-trafficking-crusade



http://vodpod.com/watch/834667-anti-trafficking-cambodia-the-reality-full-version


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 30, 2009)

I've worked for rape crisis and i can say they're anything but a bunch of puritans tbh. they come out with some un-PC comments about men occasionally but if they didn't do that they probably wouldn't be doing their jobs properly. they are actually struggling for cash in a way that is shocking for a major charity and certainly don't recieve hundreds of millinons of pounds a year from the gov't. 

i'm not familiar with a lot of amnesty's work in the field but having been an amnesty member and having helped out at their conferences and the like they do extremely valuable work in the field and maybe the only criticism of them that can be made is that they're too NON-ideological ...


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 30, 2009)

dylans said:


> All these people are wrong. They havent been kidnapped by "anti-trafficking NGOs. They havent been gang raped by police. They havent had their places of safety closed down.They haven't been robbed of all their possessions. They haven't been held in detention camps against their will.



Neither have you.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

dylans said:


> All these people are wrong.......


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2009)

belboid said:


> The final Nick Mai report is out.  Mai, as I'm sure everyone will recall, is the academic whose research has been at the forefront of the exposure of the gross exageration of the amount of trafficking.
> 
> In it, he writes:
> 
> ...




How many were interviewed?


----------



## dylans (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


>



yeah take a line completely out of context why don't you. I was referring to the sex workers who are seen speaking on the links I posted below but then, you knew that didn't you, you dishonest cunt.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 30, 2009)

dylans said:


> yeah take a line completely out of context why don't you. I was referring to the sex workers who are seen speaking on the links I posted below but then, you knew that didn't you, you dishonest cunt.



I think it's pretty safe to say nobody's going to watch six undescribed links, how about you sum them up?


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 30, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> wtf is this supposed to mean?



I was referring to _shygirl's_ post at #1189.



Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

dylans said:


> yeah take a line completely out of context why don't you.



...out of context? Yeah right. I was referring directly to the signatories on that Grunaid article....and you responded to that.



> I was referring to the sex workers who are seen speaking on the links I posted below but then, you knew that didn't you, you dishonest cunt.



Read my post....oh wait a minute....of course you aren't capable of using those things either side of your nose are you you tit


----------



## dylans (Oct 30, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> I think it's pretty safe to say nobody's going to watch six undescribed links, how about you sum them up?



OK. 

Sex workers are being kidnapped  against their will.

 Sex workers are being held in detention camps against their will.

Sex workers  are being beaten and raped by police. 

Sex workers are having their  places of work and safety  
closed down. 

HIV and health advice centres are being raided and condoms taken as "evidence."

All across the world as a direct result  of "anti-trafficking" legislation which is being used as a cover for a moral crusade to criminalise prostitution.


----------



## dylans (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...out of context? Yeah right. I was referring directly to the signatories on that Grunaid article....and you responded to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Read my post....oh wait a minute....of course you aren't capable of using those things either side of your nose are you you tit



Fuck you


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2009)

cesare said:


> How many were interviewed?



as this is ther report quoted extensively by those dylans et all have been saying backs them up, and as THEY have quoted from it, does that matter?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Read my post....oh wait a minute....of course you aren't capable of using those things either side of your nose are you you tit



Dylans really, seriously, knows what he's talking about.  You in sharp contrast are a knee-jerk know-nothing.  That much is clear to all.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

dylans said:


> Fuck you



....you're reading skills aren't the sharpest are they. Why not take the criticism on the nose and perhaps try reading before you post-perhaps then you won't look like such an idiot when you do post. I appreciate you obviously feel passionate about the subject but jumping in with both feet isn't helping you get your point across very well. In fact along with responses like the above you are starting to look rather foolish.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Dylans really, seriously, knows what he's talking about.  You in sharp contrast are a knee-jerk know-nothing.  That much is clear to all.



Fuck off dwyer!


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Fuck off dwyer!



Incapable of argument as ever.  Give it up Grandma, you're humiliating yourself.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Incapable of argument as ever.  Give it up Grandma, you're humiliating yourself.



Fuck off dwyer!


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 30, 2009)

dylans said:


> OK.
> 
> Sex workers are being kidnapped  against their will.
> 
> ...



Didn't most of that get established about 20 pages ago? None of that backs up your 'trafficking is a myth' assertion which seems to be the sticking point here. 

I think your own link in post #1201 did a pretty good job - in a northern Thailand-centric kind of way - of acknowledging that trafficking is a real problem, and outlining ways to address it while protecting the rights of sex workers.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ....you're reading skills aren't the sharpest are they. Why not take the criticism on the nose and perhaps try reading before you post-perhaps then you won't look like such an idiot when you do post. I appreciate you obviously feel passionate about the subject but jumping in with both feet isn't helping you get your point across very well. In fact along with responses like the above you are starting to look rather foolish.



Just to be serious for a minute (far more serious than this clown warrants).  What we have here is an instance of knee-jerk, know-nothing liberalism coming smack-bang up against someone who has first-hand knowledge of the subject.  Knowledge which contradicts said liberal's most deeply-held assumptions.

It is instructive to note that Grandma Death's response has been to abandon logic and reason altogether, and fall back on personal abuse.  The impotent rage of one whose ideology has been put into contradiction by the facts.  The truth is that the real world is a very far cry indeed from the picture that Western liberals have painted for themselves.  Far more complicated, far more interesting--but also far less comforting.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Just to be serious for a minute (far more serious than this clown warrants).  What we have here is an instance of knee-jerk, know-nothing liberalism coming smack-bang up against someone who has first-hand knowledge of the subject.  Knowledge which contradicts said liberal's most deeply-held assumptions.
> 
> It is instructive to note that Grandma Death's response has been to abandon logic and reason altogether, and fall back on personal abuse.  The impotent rage of one whose ideology has been put into contradiction by the facts.  The truth is that the real world is a very far cry indeed from the picture that Western liberals have painted for themselves.  Far more complicated, far more interesting--but also far less comforting.



Fuck off dwyer!


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Yes all of these people are wrong:
> 
> Debbie Ariyo, AFRUCA
> Adam Weiss, AIRE Centre
> ...



Yes.

The data are in, they are wrong - and most of them have an agenda anyway.





> These are people that (and I quote)....'see the human devastation caused by this gross abuse of human rights on a daily basis.'......



I'm sure that they do see this "devestation" and it must be horrible - after all, even one is too many.

They must be interacting with the same 0.21% that Blagsta comes into contact with.





> 'statistical analysis' _must_ be right and their 'notions' wrong eh.




Ummmm.

Well, I usually give more  credence to data derived through an evidence-based, scientific approach, rather than an anecdotal one.

But perhaps that's just me.




Woof


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Fuck off dwyer!



Seriously though, can't you do any better than that?  It's not a very impressive showing is it?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Yes.
> 
> The data are in, they are wrong - and most of them have an agenda anyway.



It's more than an agenda.  There are _careers_ at stake here.  A whole _industry's_ worth of careers.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Yes.The data are in, they are wrong - and most of them have an agenda anyway.



Are you possibly suggesting their perceived agenda then invalidates their response to the original article and their own experiences are null and void because of the study?




> I'm sure that they do see this "devestation" and it must be horrible - after all, even one is too many.
> 
> They must be interacting with the same 0.21% that Blagsta comes into contact with.



You see now you are ignoring the substance of what they have actually said and elevating the importance of the stats...thats a mistake.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 30, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> they come out with some un-PC comments about men occasionally but if they didn't do that they probably wouldn't be doing their jobs properly





Come on, frogs, think that statement through.

You're better than that.



Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Seriously though, can't you do any better than that?  It's not a very impressive showing is it?



Fuck off dwyer!


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 30, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> They must be interacting with the same 0.21% that Blagsta comes into contact with.



Where are you getting this 0.21% figure from again? You seem pretty fond of it.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> Where are you getting this 0.21% figure from again? You seem pretty fond of it.



I think its based on the original article...correct me if I'm wrong JD.


----------



## dylans (Oct 30, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> Didn't most of that get established about 20 pages ago? None of that backs up your 'trafficking is a myth' assertion which seems to be the sticking point here.
> 
> I think your own link in post #1201 did a pretty good job - in a northern Thailand-centric kind of way - of acknowledging that trafficking is a real problem, and outlining ways to address it while protecting the rights of sex workers.



OK i'm bored now so this is my last post on this so let me make my position absolutely clear.

Anti-trafficking is an ideological discourse, a way of looking at a problem through a particular lens. In this case a lens that begins by refusing to recognise sex work as a legitimate choice for people. 

Because it starts from the assumption that no one could possibly make such a  choice, it assumes that sex work is inherently one of coercian and force. This is an ideological construct totally at variance with the real experience of sex workers which is one of choice, poverty driven choice no doubt but choice nevertheless.

Because the discourse refuses to recognise the consensual nature of sex work
it approaches the entire question of abuse withiin the industry not as a problem of rights or rather lack of rights and the need for sex workers to be empowered by rights  but as a problem of "victims." who need to be saved.

When I say that "trafficking" is a myth, I am not saying that abuse doesn't exist. It does. Clearly given the illegal nature of sex work and the lack of rights enjoyed by sex workers, the are extremely vulnerable to abuse. 

The tragedy, like the war on drugs, is that the anti trafficking discourse, is likely to increase the likely hood of abuse as the sex industry is driven more and more underground and sex workers find themselves more and more powerless. 

What is a myth is the picture that is painted of the sex industry as entirely built on coercion and force, this picture is deliberate and dishonest and masks a puritanical prohibitionist agenda. An agenda which refuses to see sex work as legitimate work and refuses to see sex workers as legitimate workers. 

The entire discourse leads to exactly the abuses I have pointed to again and again on this thread. By painting sex workers as victims they are further disempowered. 

The entire "anti trafficking agenda should be scrapped. And replaced with a discourse of workers rights and empowerment for sex workers.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Fuck off dwyer!









> problematic(harassment, fighting, or rude) posts
> 
> hate to say it, but dwyer  is making reasonable points and just getting stupid abuse


from a guy that demanded to know about my sex life, and shared his lurid fantasies about me when I would not do that


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Fuck off dwyer!



Really Grandma, this is just silly.  Why just repeat your raging obscenities over and over again?  Where does it get you?  How does it improve your quality of life?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 30, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> Where are you getting this 0.21% figure from again? You seem pretty fond of it.


From the results of Operations Pentameter (qv).


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Really Grandma, this is just silly.  Why just repeat your raging obscenities over and over again?  Where does it get you?  How does it improve your quality of life?



...you're worthy of one response and I'm sure you're used to it troll boy.

Fuck off dwyer.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma, grandma, you're the lying bullying troll here, you silly man.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2009)

Jonti said:


> from a guy that demanded to know about my sex life, and shared his lurid fantasies about me when I would not do that



Indeed.  Jonti and I have certainly had our differences, but he has my complete respect for his principled conduct on this thread.  

Grandma Death, on the other hand, has confirmed himself as a prejudiced fool, incapable of engaging on any other level than vile abuse.

A person's true character shines through at moments like this one.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 30, 2009)

Doesn't it just. Filth United, eh?


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2009)

belboid said:


> as this is ther report quoted extensively by those dylans et all have been saying backs them up, and as THEY have quoted from it, does that matter?



Of course it matters! No matter which side of the debate you're on, sample size is important if you're extrapolating on the basis of it.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

cesare said:


> Of course it matters! No matter which side of the debate you're on, sample size is important if you're extrapolating on the basis of it.



I totally agree


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...you're worthy of one response and I'm sure you're used to it troll boy.
> 
> Fuck off dwyer.



A serious question for you.  Let's see if you're capable of a serious reply.  You've heard on this thread from people with first-hand experience of matters which you know only through press reports.  Why are you reluctant to accept their testimony?  Do you appreciate that part of your reluctance springs out of the contradiction between what you are being told and your deeply-held ideological presuppositions on the subject?

BTW, I am willing to bet that you attended university in the 1980's.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> A serious question for you.  Let's see if you're capable of a serious reply.  You've heard on this thread from people with first-hand experience of matters which you know only through press reports.  Why are you reluctant to accept their testimony?  Do you appreciate that part of your reluctance springs out of the contradiction between what you are being told and your deeply-held ideological presuppositions on the subject?
> 
> BTW, I am willing to bet that you attended university in the 1980's.



Post 1238


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 30, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> Didn't most of that get established about 20 pages ago? None of that backs up your 'trafficking is a myth' assertion which seems to be the sticking point here.
> 
> I think your own link in post #1201 did a pretty good job - in a northern Thailand-centric kind of way - of acknowledging that trafficking is a real problem, and outlining ways to address it while protecting the rights of sex workers.



C'mon, Yoss.

Dylan and all of us, of course, know that _some_ people are forced in sex work against their will (and many forced into many other kinds of work, which is a _far_ bigger problem).


The point being made is that if someone went off on a rant about the dangers of eating peanuts (about 2% of peeps will experience adverse, allergic effects upon exposure and most of _those_ will undergo more serious effects upon second and subsequent exposures - some of which will be fatal - my sister, for example, carries, at all times, an injectible antidote with her in case she is inadvertantly exposed,) and suggested that peanuts should be banned, it would be ridiculed.

The best evidence to date suggests that peeps being forced into prostitution represent fewer than half of one percent of the (massive,) industry.

Of course, one is too many, but the _point_ is, that govts., media, pressure groups and other agenda-driven sectors have ramped "trafficking" up to the point that it makes the 1930's "Reefer Madness" movie look like a well researched documentary. And that the consequences of this are having devestating effects up millions of sex workers around the globe.

I somewhat doubt that the consequences of any new legislation impacting prostitution, passed in todays, still _Nu-Labourite_ UK, will have anything other than a similar devestating effect.

(BTW, let's have a beer before the 9th of Nov, eh?)




Woof


----------



## Jonti (Oct 30, 2009)

"Denise Marshall, Eaves"





> the UK’s first campaign challenging the demand for prostitution .. is a joint initiative by Eaves and OBJECT and aims to challenge the myths _*and realities*_ surrounding prostitution


emphasis added.

It's funny 'cos it's true.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> The point being made is that if someone went off on a rant about the dangers of eating peanuts (about 2% of peeps will experience adverse, allergic effects upon exposure and most of _those_ will undergo more serious effects upon second and subsequent exposures - some of which will be fatal - my sister, for example, carries, at all times, an injectible antidote with her in case she is inadvertantly exposed,) and suggested that peanuts should be banned, it would be ridiculed.



Correct me if I'm wrong but one person in this _entire_ thread has called for prostitution to be banned?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Fuck off dwyer!



Why do you keep on in this unbecoming manner?  I've been polite to you, and tried to engage you with substantive questions.  Why must you confirm your reputation as a bullying, infantile ignoramus by just repeating this over and over again?  People reading this will see you for a wanker.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 30, 2009)

dylans said:


> OK i'm bored now so this is my last post on this so let me make my position absolutely clear.
> 
> Anti-trafficking is an ideological discourse, a way of looking at a problem through a particular lens. In this case a lens that begins by refusing to recognise sex work as a legitimate choice for people.
> 
> ...



Good post - there's been plenty of hysteria from both sides on this thread but I don't think there's much in there that anybody could seriously argue too much with.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but one person in this _entire_ thread has called for prostitution to be banned?



OK, since you ask.  You're wrong.  Again.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Why do you keep on in this unbecoming manner?  I've been polite to you, and tried to engage you with substantive questions.  Why must you confirm your reputation as a bullying, infantile ignoramus by just repeating this over and over again?  People reading this will see you for a wanker.



Post 1238.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK, since you ask.  You're wrong.  Again.



Post 1238.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Post 1238.



Stop it.  Either join the debate or leave it.  Don't just keep posting the same thing over and over again.  No-one is entertained by your antics here.


----------



## dylans (Oct 30, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> Good post - there's been plenty of hysteria from both sides on this thread but I don't think there's much in there that anybody could seriously argue too much with.



And that is where I shall leave the thread I think.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 30, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> Where are you getting this 0.21% figure from again? You seem pretty fond of it.



As Grandma says, in the post immediately after yours that I've quoted, it's kinda what this thread is all about.




Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Stop it.  Either join the debate or leave it.  Don't just keep posting the same thing over and over again.  No-one is entertained by your antics here.



Post 1238 dwyer. Ive been using this forum long enough to see right through you and your antics. Every time you quote me you'll get the same response. Now toddle off and start a lesbian thread there's a good lad.


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 30, 2009)

dylans said:


> OK i'm bored now so this is my last post on this so let me make my position absolutely clear.
> 
> Anti-trafficking is an ideological discourse, a way of looking at a problem through a particular lens. In this case a lens that begins by refusing to recognise sex work as a legitimate choice for people.
> 
> ...





This. This. And This again.


Read it and weep.




Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> This. This. And This again.
> 
> 
> Read it and weep.
> ...



Got a response to this please.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> I totally agree



They only interviewed 100 people? So 6% = 6 people?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Post 1238 dwyer.



Grandma, there is no conceivable point to this continued abuse on your part.  Unless, as I start to suspect, your true aim is to disrupt this thread with meaningless obscenity, in order to cover up the total humiliation that you have suffered here?


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but one person in this _entire_ thread has called for prostitution to be banned?



Woosh!





Woof


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Got a response to this please.



Sure.  There is more than an "agenda" at stake here.  People's careers are at stake.  Careers in which all manner of ideological investment has been made.  Investment which is not about to declare bankruptcy when faced with inconvenient things like facts on the ground.

I hope we can expect a more coherent response from you this time?


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 30, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> Good post - there's been plenty of hysteria from both sides on this thread but I don't think there's much in there that anybody could seriously argue too much with.



Word.



Woof


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 30, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> As Grandma says, in the post immediately after yours that I've quoted, it's kinda what this thread is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't see how that 0.21% applies to Blagsta's work - are the chaotic drug users in the sex trade the exact same people forced into prostitution by the people convicted as a result of Operation Pentameter? I think you got a little too attached to that number. 

See ya for that beer before the 9th, anyway - might be hiking in Sai Kung this Monday if I manage to get off the island early enough.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 31, 2009)

cesare said:


> They only interviewed 100 people? So 6% = 6 people?



It was an example of how a very small study was used by Jonti to reinforce his point of view. I was merely agreeing with the point you made.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 31, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sure.  There is more than an "agenda" at stake here.  People's careers are at stake.  Careers in which all manner of ideological investment has been made.  Investment which is not about to declare bankruptcy when faced with inconvenient things like facts on the ground.
> 
> I hope we can expect a more coherent response from you this time?



Post 1238.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 31, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Woosh!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So JD are the signatories to that letter in the grunaid wrong? Are you suggesting their agendas are blinding them to the reality....are they mistaken?


----------



## dylans (Oct 31, 2009)

shygirl said:


> Please see below joint response from agencies supporting trafficked women to guardian following Nick Davies' report.
> 
> Nick Davies’ article on sex trafficking (Sex, lies and trafficking – the anatomy of a moral panic, 20 Oct) was thoroughly misleading.
> 
> ...




I think this does deserve a serious response.There are some good organisations here,  Like Amnesty   who do good work. 

As someone who is fundamentally critical of the entire "anti trafficking" discourse, I can not simply dismiss these voices as "careerists or "dishonest." I do think however that they are committed to an ideological approach that is increasingly being discredited. I also find it sad that groups that I respect like Amnesty sign up to the "anti-trafficking agenda while being conspicuous silent on the human rights abuses arising from anti- trafficking legislation.

I noticed that one of the groups on this list is ECPAT . Now i know ECPAT, this is a group who are very active in Cambodia. ECPAT are one of the organisations responsible for lobbying for the 2008 Cambodian anti trafficking law that has caused so much misery there. They are also the organisation that produces most of "western monster" images that are associated with Cambodia. I've just searched their website here

http://www.ecpatcambodia.org/index1.php?pn=2

and I can find nothing but glowing praise for the Cambodian 2008 trafficking legislation which is nothing short of shameful frankly given the widespread criticism of that law on human rights grounds.

Their website also lists as a member organisation a group called AFESIP. AFESIP is the group directly responsible for brothel and hotel raids and the kidnapping and imprisonment of sex workers. It's worth commenting on their list of "accomplishments

http://www.ecpatcambodia.org/member...images/AFESIPkh.jpg&teng=images/AFESIPeng.jpg

- *Investigation and  Legal*. Raiding brothels and kidnapping sex workers under the guise of "rescue"

-*Education and vocational skills training) 3 rehabilitation and vocational skills Training centers: sewing, hairdressing*,
Imprisoning sex workers in detention centres for months until bribes can be paid. 

-* Repatriation*. Deportation to Vietnam where prostitution is illegal and carries long sentences. 

- *Health care*. They have got to be joking.  Rescued Girls with HIV have reported having essential medication confiscated. Health advice centres have been closed and condoms confiscated as "evidence" of trafficking. 

- Psychosocial counseling. I think we can safely assume that to be a sad joke. 


I also note how many times the word "victims" is used here.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 31, 2009)

dylans said:


> I think this does deserve a serious response.There are some good organisations here,  Like Amnesty   who do good work.
> 
> As someone who is fundamentally critical of the entire "anti trafficking" discourse, I can not simply dismiss these voices as "careerists or "dishonest." I do think however that they are committed to an ideological approach that is increasingly being discredited. I also find it sad that groups that I respect like Amnesty sign up to the "anti-trafficking agenda while being conspicuous silent on the human rights abuses arising from anti- trafficking legislation.
> 
> ...



You've raised some serious points there Dylans. However trafficking does exist what is at dispute here is scale. I personally think its wrong to dismiss these views on the basis of their perceived agenda-as JD has done. There are some well respected organisations who on a day to day basis have to deal with trafficking and see the effect that it has on peoples lives.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 31, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> There are some well respected organisations who on a day to day basis have to deal with trafficking and see the effect that it has on peoples lives.



To which organizations do you refer?


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 31, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> I don't see how that 0.21% applies to Blagsta's work - are the chaotic drug users in the sex trade




I have only responded to Blagsta's comments about his interactions with sex workers.

Due to the nature of his employment, it's inevitable that the vast majority of sex workers he comes into contact with are chaotic drug users. I have no problem with that, I greatly respect the field of work he engages in - there are _far_ too few resources devoted in this area.

My problem is that it would seem that the intense focus that his work demands has blinkered him to the extent that he now tries to extrapolate a tiny, _tiny_ minority of chaotic-drug-using sex workers as representing "most" sex workers. Anyone with some perspective can see how misguided this is.




> [Are they] the exact same people forced into prostitution by the people convicted as a result of Operation Pentameter? I think you got a little too attached to that number.



No, of course they're not (necessarily, all) the "exact same people".

But as Dylan has so elouquently revealed in this thread, the kind of blinkered extrapolation that Blags indulges in plays deeply into the misrepresetation and downright lies that has created the moral panic about "Trafficking", which is largely driven by those with a moral agenda against prostitution per se.

It really is like the current debate between the govt. and the _real_ scientists over cannabis and ecstacy. And, just as with cannabis, it is gradually becoming clearer that the Emperor wears no clothes on either issue.

Sure, some peeps have panic attacks with cannabis and a tiny, _tiny_ minority of schizoprenics experience their first "episode" after smoking it, but this is no justification for the moral panic spread about "skunk" and the continual misinformation and lies being told about cannabis to justify the prolonging of its prohibition. And certainly no reason to continue the devestation caused by criminalising tens of thousands of (mostly young,) peeps each year for doing no harm to anyone else. 

Similarly, the debate about prostitution has been hijacked by moralists (puritans even,) whose whole agenda is to spread lies and create a moral panic about "Trafficking" and similarly, the predominant outcome will be the same - the further abuse of those at the _bottom_ of the tree - be they sex workers or drug users, this abuse being perpetrated both by the authorities charged with their protection and by the criminals that operate in the shady areas created by the moralistic approach taken by those with the agenda.

The on-the-ground result will ensure that many millions of relatively poor sex workes will continue to be abused.

It's time to drop the moral panic and start to "normalise".

The fact is that there are massive, expensive "industries" built around and dependent upon "protecting" people from their own choices - choices that harm no others and choices that for the vast, _vast_ majority of those who make them have been rational and well considered.

And, the problem is, that it is inevitabley this vast, _vast_ majority, who don't want "rescuing", that is most exposed to the abusive vagiaries perpetrated in the name of "anti-trafficking". It is largely peeps from this demographic that are suffering and will continue to suffer the real-life detrimental effects of the lies and distortions that are at the heart of the "Trafficking" agenda.

One is too many, but when the "cure" is manifestly hugely more destructive to those forced to take the medicine than the "disease", it is (to me,) a clear indication that the political and "moral" fabric of a society has almost completely degenerated into the fiasco of a parody of "Big Brother", but with _far_ more damaging and longlasting - generational - effects.

Reality, honesty, integrity and evidence have no part in this brave new world.




I certainly don't see Blags as one of the main protagonists in this, rather more akin to a Debra Bell type, squealing about how her son's normal teenage behaviour is, in fact, caused by _superstrengthlethalskunk_.

And while I appreciate that, at least in Blags' case, this is probably simply misguided, due to a blinkered perspective (I'm a little more sceptical of Debs' motivations now, especially since she piggybacked her media exposure in order to charge GBP 100:00 per hour for "telephone counselling" sessions to "concerned parents" who think their kids may be toking the "killer skunk" - I guess it pays more than the average call-centre work - the need to make an income can do funny things to people,) the fact remains that it is still dangerous since it plays right into the hands of those whose agenda is _very_ far from "harm reduction".




> See ya for that beer before the 9th, anyway - might be hiking in Sai Kung this Monday if I manage to get off the island early enough.




Gimme a call on Sunday afternoon - methinks a seafood barbeque at mine on Monday might be fun - we could score some cheap fish and shrimp at the wet market and collect some mussels, clams and oysters from the rocks down by the beach.

We also need to plan this winter's Ma On Shan assault.





Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Oct 31, 2009)

JWH, as I mentioned, I will digest and respond to your posts in due course.


Blessings all.



Woof


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK, since you ask.  You're wrong.  Again.


which poster's that then?


----------



## Jonti (Nov 1, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> It was an example of how a very small study was used by Jonti to reinforce his point of view. I was merely agreeing with the point you made.


Do you have a better study?  You don't do you? As far as I can see, You have nothing positive to say, and you've made no effort to educate yourself about the issues. What you have done is seize the opportunity to grandstand your prejudice and vitriol.

Your main contribution to this thread has been to hide behind your mask of supposed anonymity to dish out  thuggish abuse and thoroughly nasty smears.  

Those tactics, and your support for the puritan liars and their agenda of criminalisation speaks volumes about your values, and the values of the people who command your respect.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 1, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Do you have a better study?  You don't do you? As far as I can see, You have nothing positive to say, and you've made no effort to educate yourself about the issues. What you have done is seize the opportunity to grandstand your prejudice and vitriol.
> 
> Your main contribution to this thread has been to hide behind your mask of supposed anonymity to dish out  thuggish abuse and thoroughly nasty smears.
> 
> Those tactics, and your support for the puritan liars and their agenda of criminalisation speaks volumes about your values, and the values of the people who command your respect.



There's a long, inglorious but interesting history to this discourse.  

Grandma Death and his ilk hate prostitutes as violently as any seventeenth century Presbyterian, and for similarly moralistic-obsessive reasons.  But sometime around Gladstone, such people learned to cast their disgust in the mold of social reform.  Their hypocrisy is perhaps even more visible today, when it is combined with patronization of postcolonial cultures.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> patronization of postcolonial cultures.


do you mean people patronising indian restaurants?


----------



## dylans (Nov 1, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> There's a long, inglorious but interesting history to this discourse.
> 
> Sometime around Gladstone, such people learned to cast their disgust in the mold of social reform.  *Their hypocrisy is perhaps even more visible today, when it is combined with patronization of postcolonial cultures.*


*
*

Phil makes an important point given that it is in the post colonial world that the real burden of the anti trafficking discourse is being felt.  The painting of sex workers as "victims" has echoes of the same patronising Victorian language used to justify colonialism, where native cultures were presented as "childish  or even savage and the legitimacy of their choices denied 

"They are children who need our help" is not so far from they are victims who need "rescuing." 

Of course the superiority of Western perceptions on these questions is assumed and the experiences and voices of those on the receiving end of this "help are ignored or dismissed. That is not an aside remark. Look at the website of one of the signatories to the list of organisations defending "anti trafficking."  Find one reference to the well documented human rights abuses occurring in Cambodia. Find one reference to the protests of thousands of sex workers against the 2008 anti trafficking law. A law, I remind, you brought in as  a direct result of the US pressure. 

http://www.ecpatcambodia.org/index1.php?pn=2

I have honestly never seen a more cynical, distorted, misleading and down right dishonest attempt to smuggle a puritanical prohibitionist agenda under the cloak of social reform anywhere. That they are on that list really does nothing to bolster the case of those who wish to defend "anti trafficking."

Look at the way the question of choice has been belittled on this thread and in the media. How many posts insisting that sex workers couldn't possibly choose. As I have said this is the starting point of the entire anti trafficking discourse. They must be "victims"  They can't possibly choose sex work. The disgust is barely hidden. 

So choice is written out of the script. The legitimacy of sex work as a route out of poverty is also written out of the script. The options of the poor are further restricted. And be in no doubt, for thousands and thousands of women in developing countries, sex work is a very realistic alternative to poverty. That's why they choose it. 

Like colonial justifications, the denial of choice serves a further purpose, it further emasculates sex workers in the same way that presenting local cultures as child like further emasculated colonial peoples. By insisting on their victim-hood and denying the legitimacy of their choices  they are turned into powerless victims, silent, defeated and ready to be "saved" by the post colonial puritans of the western world, like ECPAT above. Which of course was the intention of the Victorian colonialists in their day and it is the intention of the post colonial imperialists like the United States today. 

So now disempowered and defeated and turned into helpless victims, sex workers can now be  driven out of the brothel, under the cloak of being saved, locked up in detention camps. (sunny rehabilitations centres full of happy ex sex slaves, according to ECPAT) taught to sew and forced to accept an ethic that working 12 hours a day for Nike is their only choice.
And that, of course,  is the whole fucking point.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 1, 2009)

Yes.

And I think that settles the matter, basically.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> [/B]
> 
> Look at the way the question of choice has been belittled on this thread and in the media. How many posts insisting that sex workers couldn't possibly choose. As I have said this is the starting point of the entire anti trafficking discourse. They must be "victims"  They can't possibly choose sex work. The disgust is barely hidden.



Do the child sex workers in Cambodia get much choice about sex work?


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 1, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> To which organizations do you refer?




Post 1238.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 1, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Do you have a better study?  You don't do you?



I've not pretended otherwise. I'm merely agreeing with Ceseare's point in post 1242.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 1, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> My problem is that it would seem that the intense focus that his work demands has blinkered him to the extent that he now tries to extrapolate a tiny, _tiny_ minority of chaotic-drug-using sex workers as representing "most" sex workers. Anyone with some perspective can see how misguided this is.



I agree...anyone that extrapolates from their own limited experiences and or quotes studies that use a very  small amount of respondents  make the mistake of assuming this is the case for all or the majority of prostitutes. However findings on a small scale and equally anectodal evidence can't be dismissed off hand-surely you can see that?

JD you have done the very same thing with the counter letter in the grunaid. You seem quick to dismiss the signatories as having an agenda without even being able to provide concrete evidence. Its a mistake and doesn't progress the debate.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Post 1238.



So essentially you just made it up.  

You know of no such organizations, but you assume that they must exist because that would fit your prejudices.

The floor has been wiped with you.


----------



## dylans (Nov 2, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> JD you have done the very same thing with the counter letter in the grunaid. You seem quick to dismiss the signatories as having an agenda without even being able to provide concrete evidence. Its a mistake and doesn't progress the debate.



I can't speak for JD of course and I appreciate that your comments were aimed at him, however I think I have made a fairly detailed criticism of the agenda of at least one of the signatories on that list. 

It is also very revealing to look at some of the hidden names who are supporting members of some of the signatories but whose names are conspicuously absent from the list.   That these groups choose to keep their involvement hidden rather than add their names to the signatories is itself suspect and speaks volumes for their real hidden agenda

 I have already mentioned and linked to AFESIP, one of the most active and notorious "rescuers " of  sex workers in Cambodia and one of the organisations who pushed for the 2008 Cambodian anti trafficking law as well as one of its biggest defenders. They are the organisation most frequently denounced by sex workers rights activists. They don't appear on the list. They remain in the shadows. To find them you need to scour ECPATS website.

Also not a signatory but a supporting member of both ECPAT and AFESIP  is World Vision. Their name also appears on ECPATS website as a supporting member. 

 World Vision are a huge international aid agency, active around the globe with an enormous budget and thousands of employees. They do some good work. Unfortunately they also have an agenda of their own.

They are  an Evangelical Christian organisation and they make no bones of the fact that they consider proselatising to be a part of their mission. In short, their aim is to convert Buddhist Cambodians to Christianity through Aid projects and employment.

 There is a name for this deceptive and dishonest practice. Its called "rice bowl Christianity." Where poor people are offered rice with the one hand and, when they reach for it, are presented with a bible with the other.

They have a large presence in Cambodia and employ and train dozens of Cambodian staff. They pay good salaries and have quality resource training programmes. Not surprising employment with them is highly sought after and competitive.  
  Can any one guess the percentage of World Vision's Cambodian employees who convert to Christianity?

No prizes if you guessed 100%. Think about that. Every single one of World Visions employees become Christians. Perhaps it's the power of the Lord but i suspect that it has more to do with World Vision's conditions of employment.


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> They must be interacting with the same 0.21% that Blagsta comes into contact with.



funny that altho you have admitteed that this 0.21% figure is wrong, you keep on quoting it smugly as if it prvoes your point.  When every other bit of data shows that this grotesquely under-estimates the number of women who are forced into prostitution through no choice of their own, why would anyone keep reperating it as THE fact?

becaue they have teir own petty-bourgeois individualist agenda perhaps?

You are a disgustingly dishonest person jessie. And that makes it hard to beleive you when you claim they you are interested in the wider issues (including around the whole 'discourse' arround trafficking)


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2009)

Belboid, why would anyone _need_ to "traffic" people into prostitution?  It's not like there's a shortage of willing sex-workers is it?


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2009)

because there's money in it, why else?


----------



## dylans (Nov 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> because there's money in it, why else?



Does seem an awful lot of trouble to go to though doesn't it. I mean you accept that the majority of sex workers willingly enter the trade. Why bother?

Unless (which you don't) you share the "anti-traffickers" claim that all sex work is coerced.


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2009)

Not really. Not when the women are not 'kidnapped' and smuggled in like in a movie. They are lied to, tricked, told they are going to do something else, and then kept locked away.  Not really that much hassle at all.


----------



## dylans (Nov 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> Not really. Not when the women are not 'kidnapped' and smuggled in like in a movie. They are lied to, tricked, told they are going to do something else, and then kept locked away.  Not really that much hassle at all.



No. They aren't.


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2009)

No women are lied to or tricked?

What blatant bollocks.  Why do you refuse to listen to the voice of women who have suffered precisely that?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> No women are lied to or tricked?



There's no need to lie, trick or imprison them when so many will do it willingly.

You say there's money in it, but imagine the hassle of keeping prisoners.  And I can't believe the customers would be very happy either.

I suspect that many anti-trafficking campaigners simply find prostitution so disgusting and degraded that they literally can't imagine that anyone would choose to do it.  And if anyone _does_ choose to do it, they assumes that person must be sick or perverse in some way: a junkie, or a masochist.

Such attitudes tell us a great deal about those who hold them.  They tell us nothing whatsoever about prostitution.


----------



## dylans (Nov 2, 2009)

Give it up Belboid. This debate is over and you have lost.


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2009)

dylans said:


> Give it up Belboid. This debate is over and you have lost.



really?  So you have won despite the fact that you simply deny any evidence that contradicts you, have been totally unable to show you know anything about the situation in tke uk, and have completely contradicted yourself!

you (latest) laughable assertion just shows you are unable to mount a serious argument.


----------



## dylans (Nov 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> really?  So you have won despite the fact that you simply deny any evidence that contradicts you, have been totally unable to show you know anything about the situation in tke uk, and have completely contradicted yourself!
> 
> you (latest) laughable assertion just shows *you are unable to mount a serious argument.*



Keep repeating that to yourself Belboid. You may even convince yourself. The truth is you are way way out of your league here and it really shows.


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2009)

pot/kettle.

Again, you haven't mounted an argument, put forward a reason as to why my argument is wrong, all you[ve done is said 'here are some women for whom your argument doesnt work.'  But that is meaningless, you can quote a thousand voices, but that doesn't give you the right to ignore the other women, nor, even worse, to deny that they really exist.

Still, I'm sure you've convinced yourself, and you might convince your motley collection of punters, misogynists, and trolls too.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> Again, you haven't mounted an argument, put forward a reason as to why my argument is wrong, all you[ve done is said 'here are some women for whom your argument doesnt work.'



Belboid, your argument has been _destroyed_ on this thread.  I can honestly say that I've never seen such a one-sided thread on U75.  

Here's another nail in your coffin.  Prostitution has always existed everywhere, without any exception whatsoever.  Anthropologists have even argued that it precedes non-commercial sex historically.  Do you really want to claim that a phenomenon of such ubiquity is often coerced?


----------



## dylans (Nov 2, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Belboid, your argument has been _destroyed_ on this thread.  I can honestly say that I've never seen such a one-sided thread on U75.



Annihilated.


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2009)

lol, come on dylans - everyone knows that when phil weighs in on your side, you just _must_ be talking crap, i'm afraid.

And just what argument actually has been 'annihiliated'?  Just to be clear - is it that there are a very small, 3-5%ish, minority of foreign sex workers who probably _have_ been forced into sex work with no degree of control over that decision?  Do you seriously argue that there are no more than a couple of dozen such women?  In the UK, that is.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 2, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> So essentially you just made it up.
> 
> You know of no such organizations, but you assume that they must exist because that would fit your prejudices.
> 
> The floor has been wiped with you.



Post 1238.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 2, 2009)

dylans said:


> Annihilated.



...oh come on dylans. The debate has boiled down to degrees of trafficking. No one argument has 'won' in any way shape or form. What you have is complete polarisation, with both sides in _some _cases ignoring the others arguments....and a little bit of that weasly little troll boy jumping in as per usual.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 2, 2009)

dylans said:


> No. They aren't.



Do you _really_ believe this? If you do then there's little point in debating against such myopism.


----------



## dylans (Nov 2, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...oh come on dylans. The debate has boiled down to degrees of trafficking. No one argument has 'won' in any way shape or form. What you have is complete polarisation, with both sides in _some _cases ignoring the others arguments....and a little bit of that weasly little troll boy jumping in as per usual.



No, this is not what the debate is about at all. It's what those of you who see continued value in an increasingly discredited political world view would like  the debate to be about. 

Because if the debate is reduced to  squabbling about the percentages and degrees of abuse and coercion on the margins of the sex industry,(which undoubtedly occurs) the real argument remains untouched .

And the real question is the unravelling, at long last, of a lie. A  cynical and dishonest ideological discourse that has dominated, framed and controlled all political debate on the question of sex work for decades to the exclusion of all others and with disastrous results for those in the industry.

For decades we have been presented with a salacious picture of the sex industry as one of sexual servitude on an industrial scale. Sex workers have been presented as  powerless slaves bought and sold across the world like chattel.  Claims of consent or choice have been dismissed with contempt. Those who argued otherwise, including sex workers themselves, have been smeared and insulted and ignored

Now this discourse is increasingly revealed for what it really is and it's defenders now fight a rearguard action. Where once they boldly claimed trafficking "victims" in their tens of thousands, and insisted that all sex work was slavery, they now stand indignant and  insist the debate is about a percent point here or a percentage point there. Anything not to admit the truth, that the entire anti trafficking discourse  is a lie. This debate is over and the defenders of "ant-trafficking" have lost.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...oh come on dylans. The debate has boiled down to degrees of trafficking. No one argument has 'won' in any way shape or form.



I'm sure it comforts you to say that.  But no amount of wriggling can disguise the fact that your agenda has been comprehensively exposed as the ideologically-driven tissue of lies that it is.  You ought to thank us.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Because I am politically and morally opposed to prostitution. Even if it was a high class prostitute who chose to go down that path I still wouldn't. The thing is I know that behind most prostitutes there's a story-drugs, organised crime, sexual abuse, pimps etc. Because I have knowledge of that I couldn't bring myself to partake in that misery. That prostitute is someones sister or daughter....
> 
> I think you have a moral duty once you are aware of something which doesnt sit well with your politics to make some real choices. For me it means not playing a part in a trade which by and large creates a lot of misery.



Probably worth quoting this self-righteous, pompous, puritanical, ignorant bollocks again.  Just in case Grandma Death tries to wriggle out of his mess by claiming that everyone on this thread has always been in agreement.  

"High class prostitute." Idiot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> The thing is I know that behind most prostitutes there's a story-drugs, organised crime, sexual abuse, pimps etc.



it's probably worth pointing out that behind most people there's a story of some sort


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> I think you have a moral duty once you are aware of something which doesnt sit well with your politics to make some real choices.



Self-satistfied, smug, supercilious, complacent, conceited, cocksure, puffed-up, pompous, priggish puritanical prat.  

"Make some real choices."  Wanker.


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> funny that altho you have admitteed that this 0.21% figure is wrong, you keep on quoting it smugly as if it prvoes your point.  When every other bit of data shows that this grotesquely under-estimates the number of women who are forced into prostitution through no choice of their own, why would anyone keep reperating it as THE fact?
> 
> becaue they have teir own petty-bourgeois individualist agenda perhaps?
> 
> You are a disgustingly dishonest person jessie. And that makes it hard to beleive you when you claim they you are interested in the wider issues (including around the whole 'discourse' arround trafficking)




Eh?

Stop havershiteing!




Woof


----------



## Jonti (Nov 3, 2009)

> I think you have a moral duty once you are aware of something which doesnt sit well with your politics to make some real choices.


And I think you have a moral duty to recalibrate your views. You have endorsed and taken part in a massive puritan lie against sex-workers; and have supported that lie with smears and prurient abuse against rationalists.

Once the puritan liars like you once boldly claimed trafficking "victims" in their tens of thousands, and insisted that all sex work was slavery.  Now you stand indignant and try to insist the debate is about a percent point here or a percentage point there. Anything not to admit the truth, that you've been caught out in a cynical lie. 

*When the puritans talk about "trafficking" they do not care if folks are being threatened, fooled or beaten.  The puritans only care about the sex angle.*

But whatever your feelings, laws and cops have to concentrate on the real problem. And that is people who are trafficked into servitude and slavery, not sex work as such. The problem is not that laws against trafficking exist, it is with the way they are written, the activities criminalised and the way they actually fit the government's agenda rather than the people.

Trafficking definitions need to align with the Palermo protocol so that the "three Fs" of fear, force or fraud are incorporated into legislation.


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> Not really. Not when the women are not 'kidnapped' and smuggled in like in a movie. They are lied to, tricked, told they are going to do something else, and then kept locked away.  Not really that much hassle at all.



Rubbish.

I'm sure that it happens, but it represents a _miniscule_ percentage of sex workers (say about 0.21%) and to suggest otherwise is, dishonest, disingenuous scaremongering.


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> lol, come on dylans - everyone knows that when phil weighs in on your side, you just _must_ be talking crap, i'm afraid.
> 
> And just what argument actually has been 'annihiliated'?  Just to be clear - is it that there are a very small, 3-5%ish, minority of foreign sex workers who probably _have_ been forced into sex work with no degree of control over that decision?  Do you seriously argue that there are no more than a couple of dozen such women?  In the UK, that is.



More like less than half of one percent.

And it's amazing just how many salaries are supported by addressing this miniscule problem. It's a racket.

One is too many, but......


Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> No, this is not what the debate is about at all. It's what those of you who see continued value in an increasingly discredited political world view would like  the debate to be about.
> 
> Because if the debate is reduced to  squabbling about the percentages and degrees of abuse and coercion on the margins of the sex industry,(which undoubtedly occurs) the real argument remains untouched .
> 
> ...



This sums it all up.



Woof


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

Jonti said:


> And I think you have a moral duty to recalibrate your views. You have endorsed and taken part in a massive puritan lie against sex-workers; and have supported that lie with smears and prurient abuse against rationalists.
> 
> Once the puritan liars like you once boldly claimed trafficking "victims" in their tens of thousands, and insisted that all sex work was slavery.  Now you stand indignant and try to insist the debate is about a percent point here or a percentage point there. Anything not to admit the truth, that you've been caught out in a cynical lie.
> 
> *When the puritans talk about "trafficking" they do not care if folks are being threatened, fooled or beaten.  The puritans only care about the sex angle.*



Ain't that the truth.

Grandma Death and (some of) his allies here have made it perfectly clear that _all_ prostitution disgusts them.  

Their hollow pretense that all prostitution is in some way coerced--which is exactly what Grandma is claiming with his "behind every prostitute lies drugs/pimps/the bogieman" nonsense--is a transparent attempt to rationalize their revulsion from prostitution and prostitutes _per se_.

Rather than interfere in the politics of prostitution they would do better to visit a shrink.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 3, 2009)

trabuquera said:


> chaps, surely the hint is in the original story:
> "The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single *person who had forced anybody into prostitution *". Note that it DOES NOT say "failed to find anyone *who had been forced* into prostitution."
> 
> UK Government using shaky evidence in grandstanding speeches to the media and misspending too much money on an investigation? Of course - that's business as usual, and might be grounds to get indignant if you're gratified by that sort of thing. But "no detected traffickers yet" most certainly does not equal "no trafficked women in the UK".
> ...



The starving man is not forced to work, he is free to join the sweat shop. The women how works as a teacher but can't afford to keep a house on her own for her three children isn't 'forced' into prostitution either.


----------



## dylans (Nov 3, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...oh come on dylans.  No one argument has 'won' in any way shape or form.



I appreciate that you want this to be the case, after all most political debate ends with unresolvable  disagreements over values.

 This debate is an exception. Rarely have I had the satisfaction of seeing my political opponents so utterly defeated as on this thread. This debate is over. You have lost. You know it and we know it. 

 I  would like to hope that my opponents have the political courage to rethink and re evaluate their positions on this. I guess that is too much to expect.


----------



## belboid (Nov 3, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> More like less than half of one percent.



and so you repeat again what you have already accepted is a lie.

How you can claim to have 'won' any argument with dishonesty like that is beyond me.


----------



## belboid (Nov 3, 2009)

Jonti said:


> *When the puritans talk about "trafficking" they do not care if folks are being threatened, fooled or beaten.  The puritans only care about the sex angle.*



actually, i think you'll fnd that's you.  you'll deliberately ignore the realities, the basis of misogyny and power (not sex) that is at the heart of prostitution.  You'll claim that because that minority of punters who _don't_ post their opinions on punter.net, are only a minority, that you have never come across, they don't really exist, and so their is no market to supply them with pliable abused women who will do anything the punter wants.  Nope, those people dont exist, or are such a tiny minority, they are not worth bothering about.

You believe that if you want, and keep lieing about those who disagree with you (you hypocritical little toad), you've exposed your idiocy quite ably.


----------



## belboid (Nov 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Rarely have I had the satisfaction of seeing my political opponents so utterly defeated as on this thread.



ansd yet you wont say just what view you _[have_ defeated?  Is it because you have only 'won' against a fictitious opponent? Because the argument you have 'won' against exists only in your head, and isn't one that has actually been made on the thread?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 3, 2009)

i knew my comment re: rape crisis and "un-pc" remarks about men  would provoke a reaction. most of the women I worked with were married. They were hardly mad bra-burning lesbians ... but anyone who wants to believe they were can carry on doing so.


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> and so you repeat again what you have already accepted is a lie.
> 
> How you can claim to have 'won' any argument with dishonesty like that is beyond me.




Don't talk bollocks, belboid.




Woof


----------



## belboid (Nov 3, 2009)

sorry, that's your job, isn't it?


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> sorry, that's your job, isn't it?



Just because you don't like the data, doesn't mean.....



Woof


----------



## belboid (Nov 3, 2009)

what data?  you have quoted one single item of data, and then proclaim it FACT.

You have a rather naive view of police clear up rates, and you have remained completely and utterly silent on the issues as to why the rate is likely to be low.  So don't go trying to claim you have 'data' on your side, because you don't.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 3, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> i knew my comment re: rape crisis and "un-pc" remarks about men  would provoke a reaction. most of the women I worked with were married. They were hardly mad bra-burning lesbians ... but anyone who wants to believe they were can carry on doing so.



More straw men eh?


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> what data?  you have quoted one single item of data, and then proclaim it FACT.
> 
> You have a rather naive view of police clear up rates, and you have remained completely and utterly silent on the issues as to why the rate is likely to be low.  So don't go trying to claim you have 'data' on your side, because you don't.



Sure.

Just keep repeating it and you never know.....



The problem has, at last, been demonstrated to be _miniscule_, and those with an agenda that started the scaremongering and fudged their research in order to try and _massively_ escalate the numbers involved and the extent of the problem, and those who make their living from this "industry", and those who stood on the sidelines cheerleading them on - are now all throwing their toys out of the pram.

One is too many, but this is nuts.

You are Alan Johnson and I want my fiver.




Woof


----------



## belboid (Nov 3, 2009)

lol, and _yet again_ jessies argument amounts to 'naah, naah, no it isn't, i'm sticking to my ne figure,  even tho i've already admitted it's wrong.'  no attempt to justify the one (false) figure even, simply say it over and over and over and over and over and over and....

really, utterly pathetic.


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> lol, and _yet again_ jessies argument amounts to 'naah, naah, no it isn't, i'm sticking to my ne figure,  even tho i've already admitted it's wrong.'  no attempt to justify the one (false) figure even, simply say it over and over and over and over and over and over and....
> 
> really, utterly pathetic.



Yeah, whatever.

My argument has been made very clearly, as has Dylan's and Jonti's - we're not that far apart on the topic as is obvious.

I'll let readers decide.

You, on the other hand, are among those emptying the pram - for whatever reason.

As you wish.



I'm out of this thread now, too.

I think there's enough been posted for peeps to make up their minds as to whether the whole "Trafficking" thing has been blown out of all proportion by people with an agenda - or not.



I'm off to concentrate on helping stop the prosecution of innocent tokers possessing cannabis (or any drug,) for a while - there's a wee bit of traction there at the moment too. The agenda-driven moralists on _that_ issue have just been caught out with their pants down as well - but _Big Time_ - and they need a needle shoving up their arse before they can whip them up again.



Blessings one and all.




Woof


----------



## belboid (Nov 3, 2009)

good, fuck off then, now you have been soundly beaten in every argument


----------



## Jonti (Nov 3, 2009)

We know how you "win" belboid. 

You lie and slur like the scummy keyboard coward you are.  

Show your face, or fuck off, you filthy piece of shit.


----------



## dylans (Nov 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> good, fuck off then, now you have been soundly beaten in every argument



I'm out of here too. I will leave Belboid with his "victory"


----------



## belboid (Nov 3, 2009)

your hypocrisy is boundless


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 3, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I'm sure it comforts you to say that.  But no amount of wriggling can disguise the fact that your agenda has been comprehensively exposed as the ideologically-driven tissue of lies that it is.  You ought to thank us.



Post 1238


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 3, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Probably worth quoting this self-righteous, pompous, puritanical, ignorant bollocks again.  Just in case Grandma Death tries to wriggle out of his mess by claiming that everyone on this thread has always been in agreement.
> 
> "High class prostitute." Idiot.



Post 1238


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 3, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Self-satistfied, smug, supercilious, complacent, conceited, cocksure, puffed-up, pompous, priggish puritanical prat.
> 
> "Make some real choices."  Wanker.



Post 1238


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> I appreciate that you want this to be the case, after all most political debate ends with unresolvable  disagreements over values.
> 
> This debate is an exception. Rarely have I had the satisfaction of seeing my political opponents so utterly defeated as on this thread. This debate is over. You have lost. You know it and we know it.
> 
> I  would like to hope that my opponents have the political courage to rethink and re evaluate their positions on this. I guess that is too much to expect.



To be fair you actually believe that nobody is tricked or forced into prostitution-when somebody is that naive then it follows they are going to be deluded enough to believe they have actually 'won' the argument.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 3, 2009)

Whats really funny is that two possibly three people and weasly walter mitty toad boy are all thats left in this thread-the people who started debating have actually left the thread because they are fed up of debating with the small handful of people that simply _refuse_ to accept the counter arguments. In fact they are refusing (in one case to accept) that trafficking exists and describe prostitution as mundane as buying a pair of shoes. How can you possibly debate with such a shallow and narrow minded outlook on life such as that?

Those that are left have actually dreamt up this scenario where they think they've 'won' the debate bolstered no doubt by the late arrival (as per normal) of Urbanites Official Resident Troll  Phil 'I live on my own sad and lonely and get sexually aroused by trolling on a message board' dwyer.

All pretty laughable really.

The threads all your Jonti, Dylans and Dwyer...enjoy it and your self congratulatory back slapping.

Oh and case you missed it Phil....Post 1238.


----------



## belboid (Nov 3, 2009)

I actually think phil has two wee uns being born about now.

Which is probably even sadder.


----------



## Louloubelle (Nov 4, 2009)

The sad truth is that trafficking is going on on a massive scale but not in the way that its been presented in the UK press and definitely not in the way it's been presented by the poppy project.

I was in a difficult situation of taking to a woman who had been involved in trafficking and who was a friend of several trafficking victims who had gone on to be perpetrators (as often happens), so they were sex workers who had gone on to be "managers" of other trafficked women

The woman I was speaking to is an eastern European woman and I was trying really hard to get her to talk to the cops at the UKHTC and she was wavering between wanting to talk to them and being scared of getting her friends into trouble.

I tried to tell her about the UKHTC and she googled for them and found an article about the "research" conducted by the Poppy Project and she went into a depression because it stated that the UK and London were a haven for people traffickers and that thousands of women were forced into prostitution and the problem was too big for the cops to deal with. 

As we had arranged, she spoke to the people at the UKHTC but instead of telling them about the trafficking she told them that everything was fine and that there was nothing dodgy going on at all.  

Thank you Poppy Project.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> I actually think phil has two wee uns being born about now.
> 
> Which is probably even sadder.



So he says but I think he's a fantasist. He spends most of his time on here sat in his dirty stonewashed grey underpants cracking one off everytime he trolls. I seriously think he has issues.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 4, 2009)

Louloubelle said:


> The sad truth is that trafficking is going on on a massive scale but not in the way that its been presented in the UK press and definitely not in the way it's been presented by the poppy project.
> 
> I was in a difficult situation of taking to a woman who had been involved in trafficking and who was a friend of several trafficking victims who had gone on to be perpetrators (as often happens), so they were sex workers who had gone on to be "managers" of other trafficked women
> 
> ...




No you just dont get it....trafficking is a total myth. There are no women tricked or forced into prostitution.


----------



## Louloubelle (Nov 4, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> No you just dont get it....trafficking is a total myth. There are no women tricked or forced into prostitution.



of course it's not a myth

however a lot of invalid, ridiculous "research" has been published by the Poppy Project and supported by the government 

Also, as dylans will correctly point out, the anti-trafficking legislation in some counties hurts rather then helps the most vulnerable sex workers 

I think that part of the problem is that the public and professional understanding of how trafficking works is at a very embryonic state 

It has parallels with how child sexual abuse was perceived in the 80s.  Prior to then child sexual abuse was ignored and, for the most part, unseen.  Then radical feminists took hold of the issue and turned it into a thing that men did to little girls.  It was all about the patriarchy.  The violated body of the abused child was a centrally important theme in 80s feminism. 

Now we still have a lot to learn but the understanding of the professionals is more sophisticated and the public has also been on a learning curve, especially in relation to male victims and female offenders.

Now the focus of radical feminism has changed from the body of the abused child to the body of the woman trafficked into sexual enslavement. 

However, things are so much more complex than most people can imagine and it will take time for things to change.  It is an expensive way to learn mistakes and the cost of those mistakes will be borne by trafficked sex workers who don't get the help they need and non trafficked sex workers who are oppressed by ill thought out legislation. 

Very sad


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 4, 2009)

Jesus Christ at this thread. Normally good posters claiming that there isn't much sex trafficking?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 4, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> He spends most of his time on here sat in his dirty stonewashed grey underpants cracking one off everytime he trolls.



Oh dear, it seems Grandma Death has lost his temper _again._

It's the specificity of his fantasies that's really troubling.  Down to the color of the "underpants."  Suggests an unhealthily detailed interest if you ask me.


----------



## Jonti (Nov 4, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Jesus Christ at this thread. Normally good posters claiming that there isn't much sex trafficking?


The problem is that the UK government and the lobby groups it funds have massively exaggerated the problem, by their use of deceitful terminology.

See, when the UK government uses the term "sex-trafficking", it may as well be talking about "commuting to work".  This is a fact. UK legislation ignores force, fraud and fear in its definition of "trafficking".

So yeah, there is masses of trafficking, if you want to use that definition.  But if you want to use plain English, the problem is far smaller; a fraction of a percent of sex-workers.

There is servitude and slavery in the UK, particularly in "domestic services", and including within the sex-trade.  But, the puritans are not so much interested in the servitude and slavery itself. It's sex that scares them; not slavery which they seem to find comparatively acceptable.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 4, 2009)

Hmm.  Are the people concerned about it really puritans?

I favour full legalisation of prostitution btw.  It's quite different when the women are their 'own boss' , so to speak, compared with when they're forced into it and so on.


----------



## Jonti (Nov 4, 2009)

Yes, they are.


> The puritans have the whip hand not because they can prove that tough laws will make life better for women, but because they have convinced governments that prostitution is intolerable by its very nature. What has tipped the balance is the globalisation of the sex business.


Either puritans, or useful fools.


----------



## Jonti (Nov 4, 2009)

One sees the same dynamic with "the war on drugs".

The public is systematically deceived, sometimes by useful fools. 

The result is ill focused, ineffective legislation that distracts attention from the real issues, which in the case of trafficking are slavery and servitude.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Yes, they are.
> Either puritans, or useful fools.



yawn, your moralism fools no one. Claims that those who disagree with you are 'puritans' even more pathetic than jessiedogs repeated lie, and doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.  You have not and can not show one single post displaying this 'puritanism'.

Now join the rest of your coterie of cunts, and fuck off.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Oh dear, it seems Grandma Death has lost his temper _again._
> 
> It's the specificity of his fantasies that's really troubling.  Down to the color of the "underpants."  Suggests an unhealthily detailed interest if you ask me.



Post 1238.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 4, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Yes, they are.
> Either puritans, or useful fools.




Away with you and your infantile labels Jonti.


----------



## Jonti (Nov 4, 2009)

That "infantile label" of puritan is completely accurate; you're going to have to up your game, or get used to it.

But look on the bright side. In this thread you have displayed repellent and prurient attitudes about what consenting adults do in private; and have behaved like an amoral thug:-  "puritan" is a mild term to apply to mendacious bullies like yourself. Accurate, though.

I hope this has been a growth experience for you, because you have certainly behaved in the most puerile and foolish way on this thread.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2009)

if it is completey accurate, you'll be able to find a post from this thread setting out our 'puritanism'

If you wont do that, you will be admitting that you are another liar and a simpleton, whose interest in the thread is not that one which you have stated.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2009)

from Jonti's link:

"Puritans argue that where laws have been liberalised—in, for instance, the Netherlands, Germany and Australia—the new regimes have not lived up to claims that they would wipe out pimping and sever the links between prostitution and organised crime."

as everyone deemed a 'puritan' by Jonti has argued almost exactly the opposite of that (Nigel excepted) this proves that Jonti  is a liar.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 4, 2009)

Jonti said:


> But look on the bright side. In this thread you have displayed repellent and prurient attitudes about what consenting adults do in private; and have behaved like an amoral thug:-  "puritan" is a mild term to apply to mendacious bullies like yourself. Accurate, though.



I have to disagree here.  "Puritan" implies a revolutionary asceticism, and Grandma Death is certainly not a revolutionary, and only ascetic when it comes to sex.  "Amoral" indicates an absence of morality, whereas Grandma Death espouses _immorality._  And "thug" implies a physical hardiness which he obviously does not possess.

The only truly accurate term for Grandma Death is "wanker."


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 4, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Jesus Christ at this thread. Normally good posters claiming that there isn't much sex trafficking?



UDW,

As I'm sure you are aware, there is a "trafficking" problem in mainland China. Men, women and (of course, mostly,) children are (sometimes kidnapped and) forced into the sex trade - though that's a tiny minority, most are forced into other kinds of labour - against their will; violence is common. I don't know how much gets into the mainland press, and I doubt much gets into the UK press, but here, there are regular reports, at least a dozen major cases a year where people have been "trafficked".

One of the worst (factual,) stories recently was that of the children being - mostly - kidnapped though sometimes sold (even by their parents, on occassion,) into the "Brick Kilns". There were about 3,000 children between the ages of 9 and 15 working 12 hours a day or more in sweatshops (no pun intended,) making and baking building-bricks for construction works - in and out of hot "home made" ovens on shovels all day (and nighshift too, of course), far, far from their homes.

Many villages over many provinces were decimated by the swathes of kidnapping and yet their complaints fell on deaf ears, since their local officials had been bribed by the traffickers - it went on for years.

These were children that were not working to send money to support their families, they had either been sold and were slaves, or stolen and were slaves. There was _no_ pay - some got occassional pocket money, 2 Kwai here, 2 Kwai there. They got fed and housed and held against their will.

This is _appalling_!

_Real_ "Trafficking".

One _adult_ is too many, and to think of 3,000 _kids_ breaks my heart.





But that said, as a percentage of migrant workers, as you know, it's tiny. There are many hundreds of _millions_ of migrant workers in China who are _not_ trafficked (about 400 million).

They _willingly_ travel thousands of miles by rail, or in trucks, in order to work - really fucking _hard_ work - for 12 to 16 hours a day, six days a week in a shitty factory, under shitty conditions, with shitty bosses, fed shitty food, living in (massive, overcrowded,) shitty warehouse-style dormatories, sharing _far_too few shitty toilets with far too many of the other 3,000 or more migrant workers engaged at their factory.

And they get paid between GBP 50:00 and GBP 100:00 a month (it fluctuates wildly on an annual basis, depending upon the current economic circumstances), the bulk of which they send home to their families. And once a year, for two weeks, they get to go home to see their husband or wife, children, parents, uncles, aunts, friends, etc. etc. and then, it's back on the train/truck for another year of the same.

And though some of them are certainly lied to about the "glorious" working conditions, the "luxury" dorms or the super-high "potential" wages, etc. - to encourage them to check it out, they virtually _all_ decide to stay anyway (for as long as they want, they can leave at any time,) because the annual wages, meagre as they may seem to Urbanites, are between three and often up to _ten_ times what the _whole family_ can bring in by working the smallholding they farm.

Many _hundreds of millions of people_ in the hinterlands of rural China still live on less than US$ 1:00 per day, many of them on less than US$ 00:50c. Many dozens of millions still get by with a _household_ income of US$ 150:00 per annum - *that's about ninety quid a year*, FFS, for a whole family of three generations!

And it's _these_ kind of families that make the (more than often,) collective decision to send their "best and brightest" (and mostly their late-teenage women, that's what the factories demand first if they can get it,) _into the breach_ and, yes, some of them, though fewer now 'cos the checks are getting better, are underage and lie about it to potential employers in order to go.

for these families, it can mean the difference between having the _chance_ of a half-decent education for an eldest son or being _sure_ that the whole family will live the same way for another generation.

I don't blame these people for their choices.


Sure it's fucking shit, it's fucking, fucking shit and it drives me fucking _nuts_. I'm _livid_, and I'm always active in fighting for better workers rights and better _Human Rights_ in China - less so these days, since I've already pretty much destroyed my own livelyhood and have also put my personal safety at risk in order to do so (the CCP don't agree with me and they're bigger than me and I've flown a bit close to the wire on occassions).


But the fact remains that they do it _willingly_ - it's their _best_ option as they see it - and it is - it's shit but it's reality.

And I'm not about to try raise an army to steam in to "save" them 'cos they've been "trafficked", and then send them home to utter penury and try to prosecute the railways and truck drivers and factory owners - and their own family and friends - for "trafficking" them.

Somehow I get the feeling that they wouldn't see me as an ally.

There are still hundreds of millions of peeps from the countryside _queuing up_ for the chance to get to the cities and into a factory and, given this, the risks involved in "trafficking" unwilling workers is not, generally worth the hassle for the relatively small extra profit.

One genuinely "trafficked" migrant worker is is one too many, and there could be (unlikely I admit, but there could be,) up to even a _million_ workers genuinely "trafficked" against their will, that are chained to their machine and beaten and deprived of their freedom and want to run screaming to get to the nearest police post but can't. But even if it's that many (hard to believe,) it's a tiny _tiny_ percentage of _all_ migrant workers - miniscule - out of 400 million _willing_ migrant workers, 1 million is about 0.25%.

One is too many, but until _economic_ circumstances change, there will be plenty of _willing_ participants that don't need to be "trafficked".



Similarly, UDW, I assume you are aware of the _huge_ sex industry in China; absolutely _massive_.

"Officially" there are 4 million prostitutes nationwide, most informed studies put the number at over 20 million.

Most peeps, obviously, prefer to work in the factories - their body their choice - but many (perhaps those that are more mathematically gifted?   ) choose sex work - _20 million of them_ - and again, most of them are migrant workers. Sometimes, but certainly not always, they tell their families that they're - surprise, surprise - working in a factory, with or without a nod and a wink (families with little income or prospects can be suprisingly pragmatic and "Blind Eye-ish").

_These_ workers earn many, _many_ multiples more than those hundreds of millions grafting in the factories; somewhere between GBP 2,400 and GBP 16,000 per annum (and, obviously, much, _much_ more at the top end) - my best guesstimate is that the median per capita annual income of migrant sex workers in 1st, 2nd and 3rd tier cities across China would be about GBP 4,800 for two hours work a day (two clients), five days a week, with two months holiday each year.

Obviously, just like all migrant workers, there are usually "fees" to be paid for the various services that they need, and have contracted to, in order to operate: providing clients to their door for a start, the business premises, their accomodation, protection from nutters and _more importantly_ from the authorities - corruption and bribery are the oils that smooth the wheels in this "grey economy arena" - but they are certainly not prohibitive given the (relative,) sums involved.

Almost all of them work through some kind of "organised" networks (be it family, friends who've gone before them and are helping out, aquaintences they've met or "snakeheads" they've asked to be introduced to), it's how it works.

But the money, for those that want to do it, is fucking _fantastic_ compared to _any_ other option.


It takes _much_ more organisation in order to get (sustainably,) into Hong Kong or Macau (as "illegal immigrants", they need fake ID's, local knowledge and contacts, etc.), but the rewards in these _Special Administrative Regions_ of China are _huge_ compared to cities on the mainland and the demand from sex workers wanting to go to these places is _huge_, such that, of those that apply, the "traffickers" need only pick a small minority - those who are obviously very "marketable" due to looks, attitude, language skills, etc. and the general _willingness_ and aptitude for the job - the rest are rejected for these locations and will need to ply their trade in mainland China.

For those that make it in, it's possible to make more in a single hour with one client than in a month working in a factory in Dongguan (the median is probably half a month's factory wage - after fees - for an hour's work). Those at the mid to top end, of course, earn correspondingly _much_ more.


Again - as with any migrant work - the tragedy is that _some_ migrant sex-workers are undoubtedly genuinely "trafficked", against their will, into prostitution across China and _desperately_ need rescuing. Possibly as many as a few tens of thousands - maybe even as many as 50,000 nationwide, but even if it's that many (unlikely given the supply-side nature of the business due to the economics), that's less than 0.25% of the population of migrant sex workers.


One is too many.



.......


Contd/


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 4, 2009)

...Contd/



Now obviously in the UK, when it comes to migrant labour (including sex workers,) the _absolute numbers_ in GBP/$$$$/Euros will be higher but, proportionately, the rewards for sex work are probably similar, or at least within the range - it's the nature of the beast.

It's the _economic imperative_.

That's probably the reason that, of the (best estimates of) about 80,000 prostitutes in the UK, most of them are migrant workers. They are there for the same reason as the "Polish Plumbers" and "Czeck Electricians"; the same reason as the 400 million migrant workers (and 20 million migrant sex workers,) in China ......... the money is just _so_ much better than any other option they have - by many multiples.

It would seem that the number that are genuinely "trafficked" into prostitution in the UK, against their will, is about the same, proportionately, as in China - a bit under 0.25%.

One is too many.

But if - due to an agenda-driven, over-hyped, statistics-bending, moralistic crusade by the anti-trafficking "industry" in the UK, the country ends up with laws that are drafted so loosely as to _criminalise_ the friend of a _willing_ migrant sex worker as a "Trafficker", just for taking a few shekels from their friend for helping them into the country, or between towns within the country, *even when the sex worker admits that they are a willing participant in the venture* - which is the _current state of the law in the UK_, then, in my mind, things have got _badly_ out of kilter and it will _inevitably_ lead to a situation where migrant (sex) workers are not beneffitting and where their _rights as workers_ will inevitably be trampled on in the rush to prosecute their "traffickers".

And _that_ is the situation.

If the "trafficker" and the "traffickee" are both willing participants, it should not be possible to prosecute the "trafficker" and "rescue" the "trafickee" - even when the "traffickee" doesn't want "rescuing".

Under current UK law, it is possible and has happened.

It's bollocks.

And it's of no help to migrant (sex) workers.

It's just another agenda-driven "moral panic".


Legalise. Regulate. Educate.

And protect migrant (sex) workers rights.

But let's not _exaggerate_ and make bad laws just to satisfy the underlying moralistic agenda of those that make a living from stirring up the moral panic, eh?


Better to address the global economic imbalances caused by capitalism that _create_ this economic imperative, rather than passing laws that will, _inevitably_, largely function in a way that ensures that the greatest (and almost entirely negative,) impact falls upon those trying to claw their way up from the bottom of the economic scrap heap, no?





Woof


----------



## JimW (Nov 4, 2009)

Just seen this posted elsewhere: http://www.priceofsex.org/content/price-sex-women-speak
East European women talking about their experience of being trafficked..


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2009)

come on  onto 2000 replies


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> if it is completey accurate, you'll be able to find a post from this thread setting out our 'puritanism'



Simply put he wont or indeed can't.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Simply put he wont or indeed can't.



Well I certainly can:



Grandma Death said:


> Because I am politically and morally opposed to prostitution. Even if it was a high class prostitute who chose to go down that path I still wouldn't. The thing is I know that behind most prostitutes there's a story-drugs, organised crime, sexual abuse, pimps etc. Because I have knowledge of that I couldn't bring myself to partake in that misery. That prostitute is someones sister or daughter....
> 
> I think you have a moral duty once you are aware of something which doesnt sit well with your politics to make some real choices. For me it means not playing a part in a trade which by and large creates a lot of misery.



Self-righteous, moralistic, curtain-twitching, lemon-sucking, hypocritical puritanism of the very finest ilk.  

Worse still, Grandma Death likes to dress his prurient self-satisfaction in the colors of the social reformer.  Which is of course the age-old habitual tendency of people like him.  Anyone who wants an insight into Grandma Death's perverse mentality should read _Gladstone's Prostitutes_ by Frederick Crews.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2009)

Not to belabor the point too much (it's beginning to seem a bit cruel tbh), but this is the kind of thing he comes out with:



Grandma Death said:


> That prostitute is someones sister or daughter.



Grandma Death obviously considers prostitution an inherently degraded practice.  He believes that prostitutes are debased individuals in need of redemption--by him, no doubt.

Note that Grandma is not referring here to "trafficked" prostitutes, but to _all_ of them.  He despises them, clearly enough, but he cannot admit this publicly, so he dons the guise of an altruist.  Despicable.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Anyone who wants an insight into Grandma Death's perverse mentality should read _Gladstone's Prostitutes_ by Frederick Crews.



Which I've just discovered is out of print.

No matter.  A quick Google reveals this highly entertaining summary of Gladstone's "rescue work" (as he called it) with "fallen women" (as he called them).  The psycho-sexual complexities informing Grandma Death's puritanism and self-righteousness stripped bare:

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/pms/gladwom.html


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> One is too many.


pious shite, it's a terrible shame you don't really mean it.

Your post points out many horrors jessiedog, but it has almost nothing to actually say about what anyone else has been arguing. And it is really quite dishonest.  In order to justify your falsehood about 0.21% of sex workers being trafficked, you now compare the number of such trafficked sex workers in china with ALL migrant workers!!!  Talk about moving the goalposts.

I say again, I don’t disbelieve what you say about the horrors of many of aspects of working life in China, which, even here, is well known to be an appalling place to work for most people.  But that fact doesn’t alter the other fact – ie that you have chosen to completely ignore the words of those sex workers whose views do not coincide with yours. You can post a hundred, a thousand, as many as you like, tales of appalling woe caused by aspects of capital that don’t touch on sex work, but they do not and will not alter the fact that trafficking in the UK is vastly bigger than you choose to believe, and your arguments against that fact hold no water whatsoever.


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Well I certainly can:



not with that you can't.  that is GD saying why he wouldn't use a prostitute. You obviously disagree, is that becausde you do like to use prostitutes?  If not, what is your reason for not wanting to do so?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2009)

belboid said:


> not with that you can't.  that is GD saying why he wouldn't use a prostitute. You obviously disagree, is that becausde you do like to use prostitutes?  If not, what is your reason for not wanting to do so?



Because women want to have sex with me for free.  I'm a good-looking and witty chap if I do say so myself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Because women want to have sex with me for free.


yeh, they're hardly likely to pay for the doubtful privilege of shagging you.


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Because women want to have sex with me for free.  I'm a good-looking and witty chap if I do say so myself.



interersting set of assumptions underlying that post, which rather under cut your other arguments.  Shock horrror.


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 5, 2009)

belboid said:


> pious shite, it's a terrible shame you don't really mean it.
> 
> Your post points out many horrors jessiedog, but it has almost nothing to actually say about what anyone else has been arguing. And it is really quite dishonest.  In order to justify your falsehood about 0.21% of sex workers being trafficked, you now compare the number of such trafficked sex workers in china with ALL migrant workers!!!  Talk about moving the goalposts.



No I didn't



You don't really understand "numbers", do you?





> I say again, I don’t disbelieve what you say about the horrors of many of aspects of working life in China, which, even here, is well known to be an appalling place to work for most people.  But that fact doesn’t alter the other fact – ie that you have chosen to completely ignore the words of those sex workers whose views do not coincide with yours. You can post a hundred, a thousand, as many as you like, tales of appalling woe caused by aspects of capital that don’t touch on sex work, but they do not and will not alter the fact that trafficking in the UK is vastly bigger than you choose to believe, and your arguments against that fact hold no water whatsoever.




Better re-read my post and try and understand what I was saying, it should be quite clear to anyone who can comprehend basic "O' level maths.

Your making yourself look a bit silly.




Woof


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2009)

and yet another post where jessie doesn't actually respond to the points made.  Becoming a bit of a habit that.

As to looking silly....well, if that's the best you  can do, Malcolm Tucker will hardly be quivering in his bed at your ability to insult

''


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 5, 2009)

belboid said:


> and yet another post where jessie doesn't actually respond to the points made.  Becoming a bit of a habit that.
> 
> As to looking silly....well, if that's the best you  can do, Malcolm Tucker will hardly be quivering in his bed at your ability to insult
> 
> ''




If you say so.

But I'm sure other people reading realise that 50,000 is 0.25% of 20 million and _not_ of 400 million, even if you don't.

Run along now and do your (maths) homework.





Woof


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> If you say so.
> 
> But I'm sure other people reading realise that 50,000 is 0.25% of 20 million and _not_ of 400 million, even if you don't.
> 
> ...




oh dear oh dear:



Jessiedog said:


> But even if it's that many (hard to believe,) it's a tiny _tiny_ percentage of _all_ migrant workers - miniscule - out of 400 million _willing_ migrant workers, 1 million is about 0.25%.



don't you even read your pwn posts jessie?

do you not bothering even reading your own posts jessie?  

Or makybe you just make them up as you go along.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Well I certainly can:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Post 1238


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Not to belabor the point too much (it's beginning to seem a bit cruel tbh), but this is the kind of thing he comes out with:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Post 1238


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Post 1238



Grandma, I'm afraid you're going to have to control yourself if you want to continue your participation here.  

The point of messageboards is to have a debate.  But if you can't have a debate, at least engage in a spirited or amusing exchange of insults.  What's the point in just repeating yourself over and over again like this?  It makes you look like a humorless ass.  Even if you are a humorless ass, you might at least try to disguise the fact.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Grandma, I'm afraid you're going to have to control yourself if you want to continue your participation here.
> 
> The point of messageboards is to have a debate.  But if you can't have a debate, at least engage in a spirited or amusing exchange of insults.  What's the point in just repeating yourself over and over again like this?  It makes you look like a humorless ass.  Even if you are a humorless ass, you might at least try to disguise the fact.



Post 1238


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Post 1238



No.  Stop it.  You are making a spectacle of yourself here.  I mean, at the very least say nothing--this is just pathetically childish.  Have you no pride Granny?


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No.  Stop it.  You are making a spectacle of yourself here.  I mean, at the very least say nothing--this is just pathetically childish.  Have you no pride Granny?




Post 1238


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Post 1238



But don't you see that you're humiliating yourself here?  You make yourself seem impotent--as though you're terribly wounded by my piss-taking, but unable to muster a witty or inventive response.

Just ignore me if you really have to.  That way you keep your dignity and seem to rise above the fray.  This is making you a laughing stock.


----------



## dylans (Nov 5, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Post 1238



What is this shit? My ten year old son doesn't behave like this. Give it a fucking rest.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 5, 2009)

dylans said:


> What is this shit? My ten year old son doesn't behave like this. Give it a fucking rest.



Dylans thought you left this thread?


----------



## dylans (Nov 5, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Dylans thought you left this thread?



Whats up? Are you worried I might return to wipe the floor with you again?  Don't worry, I just popped in to ask you to FUCKING GROW UP.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 5, 2009)

dylans said:


> Whats up? Are you worried I might return to wipe the floor with you again?  Don't worry, I just popped in to ask you to FUCKING GROW UP.



Dear oh dear-what a chameleon you are eh. First you state on more than one occasion you no longer intend to post, then you apologise via PM for your behaviour towards me in this thread and now this post.

Well done.


----------



## dylans (Nov 5, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Dear oh dear-what a chameleon you are eh. First you state on more than one occasion you no longer intend to post, then you apologise via PM for your behaviour towards me in this thread and now this post.
> 
> Well done.



Just fuck off you wanker.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 5, 2009)

dylans said:


> Just fuck off you wanker.



...dear oh dear. Guess that 'extended hand' and apology no longer stands eh.

You're still posting here too after stating you won't post anymore...oh well....not very reliable and honest are you?


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 5, 2009)

belboid said:


> oh dear oh dear:
> 
> 
> 
> ...








_Please_ read my post again, belboid, _carefully_.

You really _don't_ understand "numbers", do you?




Woof


----------



## dylans (Nov 5, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> ...dear oh dear. Guess that 'extended hand' and apology no longer stands eh.
> 
> You're still posting here too after stating you won't post anymore...oh well....not very reliable and honest are you?



Hey cunt.

Why don't you just  post the contents of that PM? Or better still pm me your address and i will come over and kick your fucking teeth in.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 5, 2009)

dylans said:


> Hey cunt.
> 
> Why don't you just  post the contents of that PM? Or better still pm me your address and i will come over and kick your fucking teeth in.



Post reported plus your abusive PMs.

You have lost it big time mate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Post reported plus your abusive PMs.
> 
> You have lost it big time mate.


----------



## dylans (Nov 5, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Post reported plus your abusive PMs.
> 
> You have lost it big time mate.



Fuck off you slime.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 5, 2009)

dylans said:


> Fuck off you slime.



Have you been drinking?


----------



## dylans (Nov 5, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Have you been drinking?



What part of FUCK OFF  don't you understand?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 5, 2009)

Threats and PM abuse, 48h ban.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Post reported plus your abusive PMs.



Pathetic.

You've wrecked two separate threads tonight, and managed to get one of the boards' most interesting posters banned, by referring publicly to the content of a friendly PM he sent you.

Despicable.


----------



## Jonti (Nov 6, 2009)

Thing is, Fridgie, allow the shady, filthy louts like Grandma Death and his mates to smear _real_ people as rapists, and you know what?  Some of us could easily end up being attacked irl.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2009)

oh the drama


----------



## belboid (Nov 6, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> _Please_ read my post again, belboid, _carefully_.
> 
> You really _don't_ understand "numbers", do you?
> 
> ...



I do actually. And I undeerstand how people deliberately misuse them.

You, understand neither 'numbers' (is one too many for you there too?), nor power, nor gender politics.  Typical petty bourgeois liberal.


----------



## Jonti (Nov 6, 2009)

lol @ belboid

You're the filth that started this "rapist" name-calling lark here. Like Grandma Death, you are just another anonymous internet thug with no integrity, and nothing to contribute. 

But that latest contribution exceeds even your previous nadir for breathtaking stupidity and ignorance. Well done!


----------



## belboid (Nov 6, 2009)

oh dear, your memory is as bad as your politics isn't it?

If it weren't you'd recall the circumstances, ie happie chappie correctly pointing out that if you were going to choose to massively 're-interpret' about what we'd said, you couldn't really object to the same being done to you.  But you didm qand threw your toys out of the pram along the way.

you excusers of the abuse of women are thoroughly exposed now.  Give it up.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 6, 2009)

Dear oh dear...pathetic. This really is an embarrasing sight to see Jonti attributing slanderous terms of abuse to the wrong person and Dwyer as per normal attempting to feign outrage in a risible attempt to troll. If you're upset at the decision to ban dylans take it up with Fridgemagnet who saw the PMs and took that decision. Don't worry your friend will be back in a few days time and your world will be back to 'normal'.


----------



## cesare (Nov 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Pathetic.
> 
> You've wrecked two separate threads tonight, and managed to get one of the boards' most interesting posters banned, by referring publicly to the content of a friendly PM he sent you.
> 
> Despicable.



Well I was on the receiving end of one of these PMs too. I wouldn't have decribed it as friendly tbh.


----------



## Rod Sleeves (Nov 6, 2009)

It's not often I agree with everything Belboid has to say. But this is one of those times.


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 6, 2009)

belboid said:


> I do actually. And I undeerstand how people deliberately misuse them.
> 
> You, understand neither 'numbers' (is one too many for you there too?), nor power, nor gender politics.  Typical petty bourgeois liberal.





This is pointless.

I'm out of this thread.

I stand by all my posts and by the statistics therein.

But I see no point in debating with agenda-driven idiots.

As Prof. Nutt has learned, you can win the intellectual argument, but not necessarily change the agenda-driven "politics".


Nuff said.



Woof


----------



## belboid (Nov 6, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> But I see no point in debating with agenda-driven idiots.



oh you pathetic hypocrite. 

You are the most dishonest poster on here, and your own agenda is all too obvious.

I just hope you actually mean it when you say you're out of here.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 6, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> This is pointless.
> 
> I'm out of this thread.
> 
> ...



There's no such thing as agenda free politics; claiming otherwise is either stupid or dishonest.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 6, 2009)

Louis MacNeice said:


> There's no such thing as agenda free politics; claiming otherwise is either stupid or dishonest.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



I appreciate that.

Politics is fucked; utterly corrupt.

And is getting _worse_!

I'll continue to do my own research and inform myself through the best available, scientific evidence (it may not be "perfect", but it's certainly better than the kind of "politics" displayed on this thread).




Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 6, 2009)

belboid said:


> You are the most dishonest poster on here.



Any evidence of that?

What _methodology_ are you using to measure and determine the _relative_ "honesty", of the 40,000 Urbanites, or even of all those who've posted on this thread?

I'd be delighted if there were a _valid_ way of determining - it would be groundbreaking!


Or are you just gobbing off again?



Woof


----------



## belboid (Nov 6, 2009)

oh look,. you're back again!  another fib from the master.

you're the most dishonest person on this thread, calculated by a simple tally of the number of lies told.  you're _miles_ ahead.

now, be a good little doggie and do what you said you were going to


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 6, 2009)

belboid said:


> oh look,. you're back again!  another fib from the master.
> 
> you're the most dishonest person on this thread, calculated by a simple tally of the number of lies told.  you're _miles_ ahead.
> 
> now, be a good little doggie and do what you said you were going to




Edit.



Woof


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 6, 2009)

To be fair Jessie you've ignored other peoples links & direct questions put to you so to suggest you're debating with closed minded people is quite disingenuous it really is.


----------



## Rod Sleeves (Nov 6, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Any evidence of that?
> 
> What _methodology_ are you using to measure and determine the _relative_ "honesty", of the 40,000 Urbanites, or even of all those who've posted on this thread?
> 
> ...



You're a cunt, freak.


----------



## Maidmarian (Nov 6, 2009)

Rod Sleeves said:


> You're a cunt, freak.



Woh ----- can't we debate the points ?


----------



## belboid (Nov 6, 2009)

Jessiedog said:


> Edit.
> 
> 
> 
> Woof



lol, you are incapable of debating the points, that's why you keep refusing to answer questions, and dismiss the experience of people (from within the industry and outside it) with opinions different to yours.


----------



## Rod Sleeves (Nov 6, 2009)

Maidmarian said:


> Woh ----- can't we debate the points ?



They were debated ages ago, Jessie has just been dissembling since then.


----------



## Maidmarian (Nov 6, 2009)

Rod Sleeves said:


> They were debated ages ago, Jessie has just been dissembling since then.



Yes , perhaps that's not the best way to encourage engagement though ?


----------



## cesare (Nov 6, 2009)

Maidmarian said:


> Yes , perhaps that's not the best way to encourage engagement though ?




That's what I was saying back there >>>>

There's more to agree on than not, rather than polarising at the extremes. 

We're gonna get called liberals now and denounced innit


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 6, 2009)

cesare said:


> We're gonna get called liberals now and denounced innit



...or prostitiute hating puritans....


----------



## Maidmarian (Nov 6, 2009)

cesare said:


> That's what I was saying back there >>>>
> 
> There's more to agree on than not, rather than polarising at the extremes.
> 
> We're gonna get called liberals now and denounced innit





Grandma Death said:


> ...or prostitiute hating puritans....



Oh


----------



## cesare (Nov 6, 2009)

Maidmarian said:


> Oh



rapists <----------------- liberals ------------------->puritans


I think I can cope with a Public Denouncement as a vaguely rapist liberal


----------



## Rod Sleeves (Nov 6, 2009)

Rapists are libertarian?


----------



## Maidmarian (Nov 6, 2009)

Rod Sleeves said:


> Rapists are libertarian?



In the US sense ? Probably.


----------



## cesare (Nov 6, 2009)

Rod Sleeves said:


> Rapists are libertarian?



Nah, no more than puritans are. I think I did them in that order cos rapist sounded worse than puritan. But could easily do:

puritan <----------------liberal----------------------->rapist

Don't get hung up on that left/right thing ... maaan


----------



## Rod Sleeves (Nov 6, 2009)

It all dates back to the French revolution when the rapists sat on the right hand side of the chamber.


----------



## Maidmarian (Nov 7, 2009)

Rod Sleeves said:


> It all dates back to the French revolution when the rapists sat on the right hand side of the chamber.




Who was sitting on the right ?


----------



## dylans (Nov 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Threats and PM abuse, 48h ban.



Ok fair enough. Consider my wrist firmly slapped. My apology's to the mods for losing my cool. However I think you should also look carefully at grandma deaths leaking of the contents of my pm which is also against the rules and which started the whole incident.  

And he is still a fucking reptile.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 8, 2009)

Fucking hell is this still going on? there hasn't been a proper debate for about 150 posts ...


----------



## dylans (Nov 8, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Fucking hell is this still going on? there hasn't been a proper debate for about 150 posts ...




" I've told you once"


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 8, 2009)

dylans said:


> Ok fair enough. Consider my wrist firmly slapped. My apology's to the mods for losing my cool. However I think you should also look carefully at grandma deaths leaking of the contents of my pm which is also against the rules and which started the whole incident.
> 
> And he is still a fucking reptile.



Behave yourself. I merely pointed out the sheer hypocricy of your attitude and subsequent posts after apologising to me. It would appear you have been sending abusive PMs to another poster too. For that reason and because I think you have serious issues you are now on my ignore list-and your the only one on it. Well done.


----------



## dylans (Nov 8, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> Behave yourself. I merely pointed out the sheer hypocricy of your attitude and subsequent posts after apologising to me. It would appear you have been sending abusive PMs to another poster too. For that reason and because I think you have serious issues you are now on my ignore list-and your the only one on it. Well done.



Fuck off with your passive/aggressive bullshit. It fools nobody.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 2, 2010)

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/s...009/december/sheffield-sex-trafficking-jailed



> Members of a Slovakian gang who falsely imprisoned a teenage girl and forced her into a life of prostitution have been jailed for a total of 50 years, following an operation by the UK Border Agency and South Yorkshire police.
> 
> The two men and one woman orchestrated the 15-year-old Slovakian's passage to the UK and then forced her to sell herself for sex on the streets of Sheffield. She was only rescued from her ordeal when a 'client' called the police, believing that she was being forced to have sex for money.
> 
> Investigations by the UK Border Agency/police immigration crime team revealed that she may have made the gang £200 to £300 by working for 12 hours each night. In court it was estimated that she had been made to have sex with at least 40 men.



Its non existent I tell thee!!


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 3, 2010)

> Members of a Slovakian gang who falsely imprisoned a teenage girl and forced her into a life of prostitution have been jailed for a total of 50 years, following an operation by the UK Border Agency and South Yorkshire police.
> 
> The two men and one woman orchestrated the 15-year-old Slovakian's passage to the UK and then forced her to sell herself for sex on the streets of Sheffield.* She was only rescued from her ordeal when a 'client' called the police, believing that she was being forced to have sex for money.*
> 
> Investigations by the UK Border Agency/police immigration crime team revealed that she may have made the gang £200 to £300 by working for 12 hours each night. In court it was estimated that she had been made to have sex with at least 40 men.



This is exactly why paying for sex should not be illegal. 

It must have taken some guts for a "client" to go to the police as he must have been afraid of what they might think about him / do about him. 

I wonder how many other men just abused the girl or realised what was happening and just "made their excuses and left" but said nothing through shame / embarrassment?

The thing that this report is missing (IMO) is for the police to praise the client who came forward and to encourage others to do the same and to promise discretion on the part of law enforcement when clients do report their suspicions or to give out the number for crime stoppers. 

The story as it is leaves me wondering what happend to the client and if the cops want more  clients to report trafficking they have to be clear how they can do it discretely.

More detailed account here 

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/50-years-for-family-who.5905626.jp

According to the above link she was forced to service about 40 men before this one client phoned the police.  

The Scum's reporting on this is not too bad (shock horror!)
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2768934/Sex-slave-15-saved-by-punter.html


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 3, 2010)

another example of sex trafficking not happening.  Or something 
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ave-sold-for-3k-on-Londons-Oxford-Street.html


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 4, 2010)

an 11 year old little girl trafficked in Sheffield 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8403411.stm


----------



## XR75 (Jan 4, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/s...009/december/sheffield-sex-trafficking-jailed
> 
> 
> 
> Its non existent I tell thee!!



Far cry from the bogus claims of tens of thousands which kick started this thread and from the flaming which carried on afterwards in an attempt to obfuscate that fact.

Look here's more hookers being saved from trafficking that is if you idea of saving is using suspect laws to make working conditions more dangerous and steal money.



> Lorraine Morris, 28, who ran the Cloud Nine agency in Guildford, Woking and Camberley, told The Independent that she had had no problems with the police until her business was raided in October after one of the escorts had reported an assault. She claims that the inquiry quickly switched from the allegation of assault to the activities of the escort agency. Police later raided the other women's homes, forcing the agency out of business.





> A spokeswoman for the ECP said: "The arrest of Ms Morris and her colleagues is an outrageous example of police not having a shred of concern for women's safety, and prioritising prosecutions over protection. This is not in the public interest. It tells violent men that they can continue to get away with attacking sex workers."
> 
> She claimed that police raids and prosecutions on escort agencies are being fuelled by "proceeds of crime legislation, which awards the police up to 50 per cent of all monies recovered when women's income and assets are confiscated".



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...es-at-risk-claim-escort-agencies-1852101.html


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 5, 2010)

XR75 said:


> Far cry from the bogus claims of tens of thousands which kick started this thread and from the flaming which carried on afterwards in an attempt to obfuscate that fact.



Its also a far cry from the claims that it doesnt exist full stop which some made in this thread.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 5, 2010)

XR75 said:


> Far cry from the bogus claims of tens of thousands which kick started this thread and from the flaming which carried on afterwards in an attempt to obfuscate that fact.



I don't believe that the Poppy Project research is valid, however "fact" is difficult to establish when there are criminalised, stigmatised,  largely invisible populations of women working covertly.  Obviously in such a situation it is very difficult to accurately determine how many women are trafficked.

Add to this the complication that there are varying degrees of consent, coercion and abuse, the fact that people who are trafficked can grow to love and defend their abusers and deny the reality of the abuse (Stockholm Syndrome), the fact that traffickers have found new ways to abuse and manipulate their victims, all of this means that it is extremely difficult to accurately assess how much trafficking actually goes on.



XR75 said:


> Look here's more hookers being saved from trafficking that is if you idea of saving is using suspect laws to make working conditions more dangerous and steal money.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...es-at-risk-claim-escort-agencies-1852101.html



The laws relating to prostitution often make the lives of vulnerable sex workers more dangerous.  This has always been true.  Just for example the laws relating to brothels that effectively criminalise sex workers working together safely as a collective. 

If you feel strongly about the issue then you might want to consider campaigning to change the law.  

Repeatedly claiming that trafficking does not happen when in fact is does will not help change the laws or make them less harmful to the welfare of vulnerable people.


----------



## dylans (Jan 5, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> The laws relating to prostitution often make the lives of vulnerable sex workers more dangerous.  This has always been true.  Just for example the laws relating to brothels that effectively criminalise sex workers working together safely as a collective.
> 
> If you feel strongly about the issue then you might want to consider campaigning to change the law.
> 
> *Repeatedly claiming that trafficking does not happen when in fact is does will not help change the laws or make them less harmful to the welfare of vulnerable people*.










The issue isn't that abuse and criminal activity doesn't go on. Clearly it does. In an industry forced to the margins of society it is hardly surprising that those in the industry are vulnerable to criminal activity.

Where migratory workers have to negotiate the hurdles of immigration controls it is hardly surprising that organised crime step in to facilitate the illegal migration of workers and yes many of them are exploitative and abusive

 Noone denies this. and posting up links of examples of forced prostitution does nothing to address the issue. 

.The issue is a political discourse that perpetrates a myth and that myth is that ALL or even most prostitution is non consential. A political discourse which begins with the assumption that ALL sex work is trafficking and that consent is impossible in all circumstances of sex work because of the very nature of sex work itself. 

This is not only a fictional picture of sex work, it is also an extremely dishonest one because it doesn't lay out this political position clearly. Instead it hides behind false statistics and a self created crisis in order to mask a hidden agenda and that agenda is prohibition. 

For example, one of he  organisations responsible for the sheffield story linked  above is the  "Coalition for the Removal of Pimping" Now I looked on their website where they state this. 

*



			. Yet research shows that 50% of women in prostitution were coerced into it while still under the age of lawful consent. The majority of children and women working in prostitution (they come from all sorts of backgrounds) are under such coercion and control. This can entail extreme violence and exploitation as they are forced to continue working.
		
Click to expand...

*
This is simply a lie and a good example of the way that false statistics are bandied about with abandon by the "trafficking" lobby to serve a hidden agenda. 

The reality is that the vast vast majority of sex workers are consensual workers earning a living. They need the same rights that are enjoyed by all workers in all industries. Then and only then will the abuses of criminal enterprises end. It is also worth pointing out that the vast majority of trafficking cases are not sex workers but other forms of labour. 



> XR75
> hookers being saved from trafficking that is if you idea of saving is using suspect laws to make working conditions more dangerous and steal money.



This is spot on. Time and again in the name of saving sex workers, legislation is encouraged which become self fulfilling prophecies, laws are enforced driving prostitutes straight into the arms of the very criminals they claim to be saving them from. 
*
Rehabilitation centre Phnom Penh*








Or they criminalise sex workers themselves.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2010)

Yes. This is exactly the kind of thread I meant when I made mention on that escort thread.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 6, 2010)

dylans said:


> The issue isn't that abuse and criminal activity doesn't go on. Clearly it does.



This is something we can at least agree on 



dylans said:


> In an industry forced to the margins of society it is hardly surprising that those in the industry are vulnerable to criminal activity.



Indeed.  It also means that the people working in those margins are unlikely to seek help from the police if they are abused.  People in such a situation are extremely vulnerable to all kinds of abuse. 




dylans said:


> Where migratory workers have to negotiate the hurdles of immigration controls it is hardly surprising that organised crime step in to facilitate the illegal migration of workers and yes many of them are exploitative and abusive



Yes, but this is the case with all migrants who attempt to cross borders illegally, they will all be at risk of exploitation by criminal groups and greedy / abusive individuals, not just in terms of sexual exploitation but in terms of all kinds of other abuse such as forced / bonded labour / child labour etc.




dylans said:


> Noone denies this. and posting up links of examples of forced prostitution does nothing to address the issue.



Actually I think you will find that some people have been stating that trafficking does not happen or that it happens at levels so insignificant that concern about trafficking is a hysterical myth created by the media.



dylans said:


> The issue is a political discourse that perpetrates a myth and that myth is that ALL or even most prostitution is non consential. A political discourse which begins with the assumption that ALL sex work is trafficking and that consent is impossible in all circumstances of sex work because of the very nature of sex work itself.
> 
> This is not only a fictional picture of sex work, it is also an extremely dishonest one because it doesn't lay out this political position clearly. Instead it hides behind false statistics and a self created crisis in order to mask a hidden agenda and that agenda is prohibition.



I think we are more in agreement that you think.

We agree that the statistics are often misrepresented by campaigning groups that have their own agenda, e.g. the "research" conducted by the Poppy Project.

We agree that trafficking does happen and at levels that are difficult to quantify. 

We agree that there are plenty of sex workers who have chosen to work in the sex industry (although for some this may be their only option for escaping extreme poverty, so to me this means that their choices were limited to the extent that the word "choice" becomes loaded).



dylans said:


> For example, one of he  organisations responsible for the sheffield story linked  above is the  "Coalition for the Removal of Pimping" Now I looked on their website where they state this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I took a good look at that website yesterday.  It was set up by a mother whose daughter was abused and exploited as a prostitute when she was a child.  Her daughter was murdered as a result.  I do not know where she got her statistics from but surely you can cut her some slack? 

Her little girl was pimped out and then murdered, something so terrible that most people cannot hold it in their minds and think about it.  

When something like that happens to someone you love you either go under or you take up whatever weapons you can and you fight back, making allies of others who have experienced such things at the same time.

Then you find other it has happened to and it feels like it's happening all the time but that most people don't know about it. 

Given your understanding of the terrible consequences of the application of some well meaning laws by abusive law enforcement officers, and your correct (IMO) assessment that many people either don't know or don't want to know about it, surely you can understand what this feels like? 

It is very difficult, maybe even impossible, to have an objective perspective when the world is divided between people who "know" and people who don't know or don't care. 

It can be a lonely place to be.  IME




dylans said:


> The reality is that the vast vast majority of sex workers are consensual workers earning a living. They need the same rights that are enjoyed by all workers in all industries. Then and only then will the abuses of criminal enterprises end. It is also worth pointing out that the vast majority of trafficking cases are not sex workers but other forms of labour.



I think this is probably true


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 8, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> We agree that there are plenty of sex workers who have chosen to work in the sex industry (although for some this may be their only option for escaping extreme poverty, so to me this means that their choices were limited to the extent that the word "choice" becomes loaded).



Totally. Choice does not exist in some sort of vacuum. Its influenced by many different variables. To suggest that the majority of sex workers happily choose this 'career' is naive. This isn't IMO a choice that is happily made on some sort of whim-it's one that is, in many cases-influenced by factors outside of their own control....its certainly not innocuous as buying shoes as one poster suggested.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 11, 2010)

Just seen this on Channel 4 news

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=61280958001

important feature on trafficking in Mexico / US

and more
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=61276576001

horrific viewing but essential if you are interested in this issue IMO


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 12, 2010)

I just wondered if anyone watched the 2 channel 4 news videos in my last post?

I don't understand something.


The girl "Maria" who managed to escape from the traffickers was incredibly brave and they flew her to Texas to be interviewed by Homeland Security. 

The interviewed her for a day then flew her back to Mexico.

My concerns are as follows:

She was held captive and violated for 4 months, she was also forced to watch the murder (by burning alive) of another girl and also forced to take part in the trafficking of a 4 year old little boy. 

How can it work that such an important witness is flown to the US for a day and then returned to a country where she is presumably at terrible risk of being punished / kidnapped and trafficked again?

4 months of what is effectively torture leaves a person in a terrible state.  Even if she wanted to tell the agents as much as she could, even if she was he most courageous person on the planet, she would need to tell them over time. 

If they only had her for one day and then flew her back, they would have missed all kinds of information because the traumatic nature of what happened to her would mean that all kinds of potentially important details would be repressed and only surface when she felt sufficiently contained to share them.

It must have taken immense courage to do what she did and I feel that she should have been kept somewhere safe and containing in the US, probably with her father by her side for support. 

I am left feeling extremely concerned for this girl's safety.


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 12, 2010)

Of all the incidents of "trafficking" that have appeared over the last couple of pages, I can't see _any_ that couldn't have been dealt with under other, _long standing_, legislation.


There are laws against forcing people to do something they don't want to do.
There are laws against using threats.
There are laws against using violence.
There are laws against abduction.
There are laws against fraud.
There are laws against sexual assault.
There are laws against deception (perhaps not in the UK any more, there still are in HK).
There are laws against holding people against their will.
Their are laws against kidnapping.
There are laws against child neglect and abuse.
There are laws against underage sex.
There are laws against rape.
There are laws against pimping (these ones need reforming).
There are laws against slavery.
There are laws against.......



What are these "trafficking" laws, other than badly drafted catch-alls that end up causing great detriment to those they purport to protect, while allowing even greater state control? There've been a few (thousand) of these kind of laws put in place over the last decade in the UK.

Laws prohibiting the possession of small quanitites of (so called) "controlled" drugs cause _great_ harm to individual users and society at large.

"Trafficking" laws are an _awful_ response to problems that can and _should_ be dealt with under existing legislation. Unfortunately, the UK police are now a wholly political organisation and "real" policing has suffered enormously as a result.


I agree with Lou, that prosecuting clients is the most stupid of concepts.



The vast, _vast_ majority of prostitutes are willingly engaged in their work.

Interestingly though, the fact that it's extremely lucrative does _not_ attract the vast majority of peeps into it (although I'm sure we've all pulled a trick at least once - if we needed the money).


Woof


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

Jessiedog said:


> The vast, _vast_ majority of prostitutes are willingly engaged in their work.



you have a highly perverse definition of the word 'willing'.  Not to mention a hypocritical attitude towards evidence you have _ no idea_ about the truth of.


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> you have a highly perverse definition of the word 'willing'.  Not to mention a hypocritical attitude towards evidence you have _ no idea_ about the truth of.



We are _all_ under "economic" coercion (well, I am anyway, belboid, perhaps you've no need to bother about that kind of stuff).




As I pointed out in my last post, this doesn't mean that _everyone_ will prostitute themselves _all the time_. It just means that a minority will take cash-for-companionship on occasional and a much smaller minority will make a, lucrative, sometimes on-and-off, full-time career of it, for as long as it's the best option _for them_.

There are _many_ peeps who would rather sell sex than clean toilets for 60 hours a week for a pittance or rather than manually digging roads in the cold and rain for little more than a pittance - and I'm one of them.

Nothing to be ashamed of about that, _at all_!



Woof


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

Jessiedog said:


> cash-for-companionship



puke

yup, sex work is all a bed of roses aint it.


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> puke
> 
> yup, sex work is all a bed of roses aint it.




Once again, belboid, you're _really_ not engaging properly with the content of the posts that have been made.

And again, your response is at best superficial and flippent.




You've made it clear that you have a moral problem with cash-for-companionship.

But, through this thread and others, it's been made _patently_ clear that trying to "legislate" to accomodate those kind of moral objections is insane.

Just look at how well the prohibition of alcohol worked or that of homosexual acts between consenting adults - or at cannabis prohibition today.

Fortunately, two of these three prohibitions have been repealed - at least in some places.


There's _nothing_ wrong with prostitution, per se.

If anyone is breaking any law (see my list above,) then existing laws are sufficient to deal with those law breakers.

"Trafficking" laws are nothing more than politically-motivated, catch-all bollocks and, just like "prohibition", do more harm than good to those they are (_supposedly_,) designed to protect.



It's bollocks.




Woof


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

Jessiedog said:


> Once again, belboid, you're _really_ not engaging properly with the content of the posts that have been made.
> 
> And again, your response is at best superficial and flippent.



whereas yours ignores almost everything posted and just repeats your original position ad nauseum. you ignore those - including those sex workers - who hold a different position to you, and effectively excuse male violence and abuse in the name of 'anti-trafficking'.  What value your points _do_ have is sadly lost ion your ignorant refusal to listen to anyone but yourself (in effect) and your own preferences.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 12, 2010)

From what I hear from police on the sex worker forums I attend through work, trafficking definitely happens.  It happens internally across cities (children being picked up from children's homes in one area of a city and taken to another area for sex) and it happens internationally, with women being transported from Eastern European countries (Lithuania was mentioned).

Unless of course representatives from Barnados and SOCA are lying for nefarious purposes of their own.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 13, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> From what I hear from police on the sex worker forums I attend through work, trafficking definitely happens.  .



If you listen to the police, then all possible bad things happen all the time that mean they need more cops with a larger budget and more powers.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If you listen to the police, then all possible bad things happen all the time that mean they need more cops with a larger budget and more powers.



Many more bad things happen that most people could imagine in their wildest dreams.  

We do need more resources to equip and support law enforcement officers to deal with this stuff.  IMO


----------



## dylans (Jan 13, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> Totally. Choice does not exist in some sort of vacuum. Its influenced by many different variables. To suggest that the majority of sex workers happily choose this 'career' is naive. This isn't IMO a choice that is happily made on some sort of whim-it's one that is, in many cases-influenced by factors outside of their own control....its certainly not innocuous as buying shoes as one poster suggested.



I wasn'g going to post anymore on this forum because it tends to end in flamiing and noone actually listening to one another. However I wanted to address this question of choice. 

Because I think it is a dishonest argument. On the one hand we are told that women are forced or lied to or otherwise coerced into the sex industry and that this is trafficking. This I agree with. Criminal activity such as this should be prosecuted severely., You will find no greater advocate of preventing this criminal activity than from sex workers themselves;

But then, when it is pointed out that the vast vast majority of sex workers choose to enter the sex trade, the goal posts are shifted. The validity of those choices themselves are them questioned. How can poor people be said to choose, is the usual argument. Now this I have issues with. 

First it is a choice. This is shown by the fact that the majority of poor people in the same position choose not to enter the sex trade. In many developing countries, the decision to enter the sex industry is a difficult one and one with many social consequences.I is a choice made after thinking long and hard. Remarks about people happily entering the trade are flippant and silly.  In Cambodia, a hooker will never get married. She will live a lonely life as soon as she reaches that crucial age when her looks fade and a new generation move in. She knows this,but she looks around her at the glass ceiling and the poverty and her empty belly and she makes a hard choice.  She kisses the devil for the chance to not be poor for a few years. To sit that side of the bar sipping the cocktail. For the chance to earn a few dollars, to eat well, to excape the grinding desperation of poverty. 

The refusal to recognise the legitimacy of these choices does these girls no favours. It denies agency and again reduces these women to mere powerless victims. This I find insulting and patronising. Some of the strongest., most independant women I Know are sex workers. I count many of them my good friends to this day. They would adamantly deny that they are not masters of their own destiny. In fact for many sex workers the ability to control their lives is one of the reasons they chose to enter the sex trade.

For most in the industry sex work is a choice, a choice not to be poor. Until those who are morally opposed to prostitutiion can offer a better option that sewing trainers in NIke sweatshops, we should respect those choices. The solution to genuine coercion and criminal abuse is through a discourse of workers rights.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If you listen to the police, then all possible bad things happen all the time that mean they need more cops with a larger budget and more powers.



Maybe you could come and sit on the sex worker's forums that I sit on and tell them that?


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> For most in the industry sex work is a choice, a choice not to be poor. Until those who are morally opposed to prostitutiion can offer a better option that sewing trainers in NIke sweatshops, we should respect those choices. The solution to genuine coercion and criminal abuse is through a discourse of workers rights.




Aye.

Woof


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 13, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Maybe you could come and sit on the sex worker's forums that I sit on and tell them that?



Wouldn't make it any less true.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> The solution to genuine coercion and criminal abuse is through a discourse of workers rights.



No one is arguing anything different.  That doesn't mean that one can't also think critically about the subject.  Same as I'm all for someone's choice to take heroin, doesn't mean I can't also think critically about what motivated them to make that choice.


----------



## dylans (Jan 13, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> No one is arguing anything different.  That doesn't mean that one can't also think critically about the subject.  Same as I'm all for someone's choice to take heroin, doesn't mean I can't also think critically about what motivated them to make that choice.



Noone? 
That's simply not true. How about USAID which refuses financial support to any group or organisation without a specific prohibitionist agenda?



> *No funds … may be used to provide assistance to any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.” (Center for Health and Gender Equity Policy Brief, 2008)*



It is as a direct result of US threats to downgrade Cambodia to tier three on the TIP scale ( something that would have cost Cambodia millions in aid and development funds) that Cambodia passed a law in 2008 outlawing all prostitution. This was done on the basis that no prostitution can be considered a result of choice and all prostitutes were trafficking victims. 
T





> he Kingdom of Cambodia passed an anti-trafficking law sponsored by USAID in April of 2008. *The law states that every sex worker is a trafficked person and anyone who has contact with a sex worker is a human trafficke*r, regardless of the nature of that contact. This law was given to the Cambodian government as an ultimatum, that ultimatum being to pass the law or to be raised to a tier 3 trafficking country. The United States government provides millions of dollars of aid to Cambodia; however it does not provide any financial aid to countries rated at a tier 3 trafficking level.



The results of this legislation? The arrest and illegal detention of thousands of sex workers.








And central to this is a political perspective that refuses to accept sex work as _ever_ being the result of choice.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 13, 2010)

No one this thread you dolt!


----------



## dylans (Jan 13, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> No one this thread you dolt!



Not true either. Many posters on here (including  yourself) have attempted to ridicule the idea of sex work as the result of choice. By doing so you unwittingly sign into the same prohibitionist agenda that eliminates agency and choice in the motivations of those who enter the industry. By doing so you reduce sex workers to powerless victims to be saved.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 13, 2010)

I haven't done anything of the kind, you dishonest twat.  In fact I've been careful to point out that I am in favour of worker's rights for sex workers.


----------



## dylans (Jan 13, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I haven't done anything of the kind, you dishonest twat.  In fact I've been careful to point out that I am in favour of worker's rights for sex workers.



You have argued time and time again that the sex in sex work makes this form of labour qualitatively different to other forms of labour.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 13, 2010)

Yes, and?  That doesn't mean that I'm not in favour of workers rights for sex workers.  You seem to have great difficulty getting your head round that!


----------



## dylans (Jan 13, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, and?  That doesn't mean that I'm not in favour of workers rights for sex workers.  You seem to have great difficulty getting your head round that!



Ok Blagsta. I'm not getting into another flaming match with you. I stand by my posts above. People can read them for themselves and decide what they think. I have spelled out my position on this very clearly. Have a nice evening


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 13, 2010)

I stand by my posts too.  I think you have great difficulty understanding that one can be in favour of rights for sex workers, but also hold a critical position on the nature of the work.


----------



## dylans (Jan 14, 2010)

> *Blagsta*
> No one is arguing anything different. That doesn't mean that one can't also think critically about the subject. Same as I'm all for someone's choice to take heroin, doesn't mean I can't also think critically about what motivated them to make that choice


.





Blagsta said:


> No one this thread you dolt!





> *Dylans *
> *Many posters on here (including yourself) have attempted to ridicule the idea of sex work as the result of choice.* By doing so you unwittingly sign into the same prohibitionist agenda that eliminates agency and choice in the motivations of those who enter the industry. By doing so you reduce sex workers to powerless victims to be saved.





> *Blagsta*
> I haven't done anything of the kind




No one?  Sure about that? Let's be clear. You are stating that no one on this thread has argued that for the majority of sex workers, sex work is not a choice.
 That is what you are saying right? 



> Agricola
> It is somewhat naive to suggest that even a sizeable minority of sex-workers do so purely out of choice - *there is usually some form of compulsion involved,* be it financial, addiction to various substances or the physical compulsion of a trafficker / pimp.





> Mr Moose
> You have a poor definition of 'choice'





> Grandma death
> Indeed. I would argue t*here is no such thing as 'free choice*'





> Blagsta
> Jessiedog loves to pretend that prostitution is all about free choice. I find it rather creepy tbh.





> Blagsta
> I currently work with male sex workers. *None of them see it as a "free choice*".





> Yes, that's right, the lads I work with could easily have got other jobs, they just "chose" to sex work.


 


> Grandma death
> the overwhelming majority of individuals *don't choose* prostitution as a career choice.



Now if you want to engage in a debate about the definition of choice then fine but don't claim that noone has argued that for the vast majority of sex workers the decision to to enter the industry is not a choice.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 14, 2010)

piss off dylans you dishonest prick


----------



## dylans (Jan 14, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> piss off dylans you dishonest prick



Why am I dishonest? I want to engage in a debate about the question of "choice" in the context of sex work as a choice of work. 

Now if  you don't agree with your previous statements that there is no choice then fair enough but you have stated that no one has claimed that. I have shown that many people have. So is sex work a choice or not Blagsta?


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 15, 2010)

dylans said:


> I wasn'g going to post anymore on this forum because it tends to end in flamiing and noone actually listening to one another. However I wanted to address this question of choice.
> 
> Because I think it is a dishonest argument. On the one hand we are told that women are forced or lied to or otherwise coerced into the sex industry and that this is trafficking. This I agree with. Criminal activity such as this should be prosecuted severely., You will find no greater advocate of preventing this criminal activity than from sex workers themselves;
> 
> ...



This isn't what I was saying. I'm saying choice full stop is influenced by many factors-and the choice to enter into prostitution is in a great many cases as a result of the _lack _of choices available to the men and women who become prostitutes. 

With a few exceptions I genuinely do believe that the majority of people in prostitution would, if they had the opportunity, choose to do something else. Thats not questioning the choices people make but an acknowledgement of the fact there are many different factors that result in men and women entering into the game


----------



## dylans (Jan 15, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> This isn't what I was saying. I'm saying choice full stop is influenced by many factors-and the choice to enter into prostitution is in a great many cases as a result of the _lack _of choices available to the men and women who become prostitutes.
> 
> With a few exceptions I genuinely do believe that the majority of people in prostitution would, if they had the opportunity, choose to do something else. Thats not questioning the choices people make but an acknowledgement of the fact there are many different factors that result in men and women entering into the game



On the whole i don't disagree with that. 

My point is aimed at the argument which comes from USAID, The Poppy Project, the Swedish Government, and of course our own New Labour Jackie Smith who equate all sex work with trafficking and deny _all_ choice in the decision to enter the sex industry. 


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201401.html


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 16, 2010)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/15/why-men-use-prostitutes

Interesting article in Fridays Grunaid. Some of the views expressed by punters were quite distasteful.


----------



## panpete (Jan 16, 2010)

To the first post

Denial is not just a river in Egypt


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2010)

panpete said:


> To the first post
> 
> Denial is not just a river in Egypt


it's not even a river in the sudan.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 16, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/15/why-men-use-prostitutes
> 
> Interesting article in Fridays Grunaid. Some of the views expressed by punters were quite distasteful.


But not, one imagines as distasteful as the attitudes you have shown towards supporters of the COYOTE programme.

So one wonders why you mention it, frankly ~ you've got some work to do on your own distasteful attitudes, I'd say, before you start pointing the finger at other folks.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 17, 2010)

Jonti said:


> But not, one imagines as distasteful as the attitudes you have shown towards supporters of the COYOTE programme.
> 
> So one wonders why you mention it, frankly ~ you've got some work to do on your own distasteful attitudes, I'd say, before you start pointing the finger at other folks.



Oh do fuck off Jonti.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 17, 2010)

No answer to that, I take it?

* Points and laughs at puritan hypocrite


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 17, 2010)

Jonti said:


> No answer to that, I take it?
> 
> * Points and laughs at puritan hypocrite



I can't even be arsed to get into any sort of debate with such a wanky oxygen thief like you...look there's a label I'm throwing at you. Fun this isn't it.


----------



## XR75 (Jan 17, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/15/why-men-use-prostitutes
> 
> Interesting article in Fridays Grunaid. Some of the views expressed by punters were quite distasteful.



That's like an article on Islam where the people being quoted were the ones screaming death to all infidels.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 17, 2010)

XR75 said:


> That's like an article on Islam where the people being quoted were the ones screaming death to all infidels.



Well if those views quoted in this article were the only ones expressed I'd agree with you-as it isn't then clearly you're wrong.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 24, 2010)

dylans said:


> Frogwoman do you think this is trafficking?
> 
> A Vietnamese girl is working in a bar in Phnom Penh. Every six months she returns home to her village to give money to her family. She has nice clothes and her family now have a new roof and some land. A girl in that village, perhaps widowed, perhaps abandoned perhaps just sick of being poor, sees the girl return to her Village.
> 
> ...



How old are these girls you're happy to see sexually exploited by older men?

And so it goes on, yes so it goes on exploitation and more exploitation.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 24, 2010)

> Do you think that the girls in this story deserve 10 years in prison. ?


Well?


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2010)

do you use prostitues jonti?  You say it is an entirely unshameful thing to do, so why wont you tell us?


----------



## Jonti (Mar 24, 2010)

because you're a cunt


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 24, 2010)

Stop it the lot of you.


----------

