Harlots Parlour

The Sex Industry Blog – For Media Enquiries please call us on 020 7175 0180 or email dearharlot@gmail.com

Rape is a human right

This is the most hate fill post I have read in a long time. Conflating sex work with rape. Does this person hate all men, she most definitely hates sex-work, and I would also consider she hates us sex workers. She makes no distinction between consensual sex-work and rape. She devalues what rape actually means by these stupid, sensationalist diatribes. Her supporters are as bad as her, and I would hope the Chaseley Trust sue the author.

We support the non judgemental attitude, of the Chaseley Trust.  Its such a shame that news papers are so sensationalist about sex, and I sincerely hope the provision of sexual services from sex-workers has not be in anyway been curtailed.

ann tagonist

An investigation was launched today after a care home admitted inviting inpurchasing prostitutes womento offer sexual services to be raped by disabled male residents.

The street workers women regularly meet with vulnerable guests men for sex sessions to be raped– known in the home as a ”special visit”.

Staff have been ordering the prostitutes women by phone who then visit disabled residents at Chaseley, a nursing home caring for 55 people in Eastbourne, Sussex.

Sex workers Prostituted women meet residents men in a special room and a red sock is put on the door handle so staff know not to disturb them.

Bosses say many physically and mentally disabled people men have no other sexual outlet – and become so frustrated they often resort to  groping female staff.

Care workers say the ”sex surrogates slaves” are ”therapeutic” and experts claim…

View original post 1,140 more words

Advertisements

39 comments on “Rape is a human right

  1. Eve Ray
    1 February, 2013

    What an unpleasant person she is. I note that she regards pregnancy and death as being more on a less on a par,

    “How are men ever being exploited when they’re sticking their dicks in women and putting them at risk of pregnancy and death? ”

    She then goes on to say that being penetrated puts a woman’s life in danger!

    That she hates men is clear. I don’t think she likes many women either. . , .

    • Editor
      1 February, 2013

      Maggie, indeed you did. And I apologise not for referring to the article. Yes I should have counter balanced that vile article with your sane article. Sane as the majority of this country would support the Chaseley Trust. When I read the tweet from Laura, I was so shaken with white rage. Lets show those sitting on the fence about sex work, how these abolitionist arguments are only a pure vile hatred campaign.

      • Guls
        1 February, 2013

        Whilst you’re quite right to say one point of view can be ‘counterbalanced’ with others, I believe you’re wrong to dismiss ann tagonist’s piece as a ‘hate campaign’. Feminist commentators are rarely if ever motivated by hatred in my experience. Her piece was not intended to stigmatize individual women who work in the ‘sex industry’ but to highlight the ethics of the industry and the sexist machinations of the society which underpins them. Of course, disabled and sick men may well desire sex as much as any other men; but to suggest that sex is a ‘human right’ – for them or for anyone – implies that ‘someone’ is obliged to provide it. Obliged = consent not necessary = rape to put it simply. And whilst ‘some’ women (and indeed, some men) may willingly enter ‘sex work’ it’s well documented that those who ‘choose’ to do so often ‘choose’ from a position of poverty, debt, substance abuse, physical and mental ill-health and in response to coercion and violence from pimps/madams. This is not to tar ALL such workers with the same brush, simply to point up the ethics of a capitalist industry and a patriarchal society. Ann tagonist, far from blaming women for the spread of STIs, places the responsibility where it belongs – with the men.

        And in response to Eve Ray, it’s not about drawing an equivalence between pregnancy and death, rather that the former can – and often does – have medical consequences up to and including the latter. Not all of these are strictly ‘natural’ so much as being a consequence of men’s practice of intercourse as a right, and a medicalized model of pregnancy introduced by patricians.

      • Maggie McNeill
        2 February, 2013

        I don’t think Cliterati would mind if you re-blogged it, and I certainly wouldn’t mind either. 😉

  2. Guls
    1 February, 2013

    p.s. apologies for the wording in the first paragraph: I don’t presume to speak for ann re the motive of her piece, rather these are my inferences.

  3. peter schevtschenko
    1 February, 2013

    poverty is a factor in women choosing sex work, in the same way that women clean toilets of rich people for minimum wage, women do various forms of work to escape poverty, if every woman was a millionare there would be no prostitution but then of course there would be no toilet cleaners
    moral supremacists just want to povertise sex workers in revenge for choosing sex work, fight poverty not women

  4. sandra kunanele
    2 February, 2013

    Thank you Guls for shedding some light on the real issues at hand. Eve Ray, Editor, Maggie McNeill, & peter shevtscenko – your support of sex workers is a wonderful and worthy cause. Please don’t hate on the messenger and listen more closely to the message – we can’t stand in opposition to the same fight. I also do not presume to speak for ann Tagonist (Thank you Guls for that disclaimer; wouldn’t want to get in trouble for expressing my understanding of her work haha), however, I read her article as protecting all women, including the sex-worker woman. I can see that it offends you that she does not seem to make an allowance for the sex-working woman that wishes to serve her calling to help the sexually-handicapped express this wonderful and important facet of our being. There is a place for that sex-worker, woman or otherwise because too many people in the world are sexually-handicapped including those that through ‘plain un-attractiveness’ or physical limitations cannot ‘procure sex for themselves’. However, it seems ann Tagonist is pointing out that the issues are erroneously prioritized when more often a girl’s choice is between being a toilet cleaner or a prostitute, than between being an astronaut or prostitute. We have much work to do before a teen-girl aspiring to a three-figure income can freely choose between school for the sexual healing arts and law school. Let us not fight against the people trying to correct the injustices that make it impossible for all, men, women, persons in-between to have these choices.

    • Editor
      2 February, 2013

      Sandra, our support for sex workers is many of us were or are sex-workers. The others of us support sex-workers for various reasons, mainly because the bum deal that sex workers get.

      The trouble with Ann Tagonist is various. She does not believe there are any sex workers who want to do the job, and if they do sex work, then they are betraying all women-hood. She does not believe a women can consent to sell sex. There is no obligation for any woman to sell sexual services to these men. The article is totally phrased as non consensual and rape. The use of words like masturbatory receptacle, This is standard radical feminist speak, and we would generally not argue with these people. It is pointless they believe sex-work is VAW, and will never change their minds. I posted it to show others what hateful spiteful words were being used against a trust who was showing concern for its patients.

      There is also a gross exaggeration of the number women in this country who are pimped in the forced sense, and trafficked. There are statistics which will say 90% of women in prostitution would rather exit. I still don’t know what the sample was, and how the question was framed. I know escorts colleagues who say they would rather not sell sex, (i.e. they would answer yes to that) but when it comes down to it, it becomes the preferable way to make money, shorter, more flexible and better paid working time. She though is not forced into it, and still has the right to choose her clients.

      Yes we should look at ways to ensure people don’t have to take jobs they don’t want to. This requires full employment at higher wages, and a greater paying welfare state, better benefits for the under 25s, student grants, better education. The prospects of any of these seem unlikely in the next few years, and I really don’t see Labour rolling back the changes the Conservatives have made. I believe Labour are secretly pleased that the Coalition is taking the stick for well fare cuts.

      To take people out of sex-work would require large increases in benefits/salary. One sex-worker who regularly contributed to the Guardian CIF worked as an accountant in a firm in London, but after looking at her commuting fares, child care, and life style took up escorting. Saw her family, worked less and worked for more. She was well satisfied. There are many escorts who when you read their advertising websites, state they have degrees. Yes they state this because believe it or not you will find our clients are not just looking for a masturbatory receptacle.

      Oh finally how did you and Guls find this piece on our site, I notice Ann Tagonist did not publish our trackback comment.

    • Nina Perez
      3 February, 2013

      i heard her message perfectly, and it makes me livid. she is not trying to protect women. she is further stigmatizing sex workers by pulling the “you are being raped and too stupid to know it” card. she assumes i cannot choose sex work. she assumes that everytime women engage in sex work they are “being raped”. i believe there is nothing wrong with sex, paying for it, or buying it, IF the parties give consent. but to ann, my consent means nothing. thus, we are not fighting the same fight. and besides that, if i wanted someone to tell my experiences are invalid, and suggest i should not be able to choose how to express my sexuality,or my own career path, why not stay under the thumb of the patriarchy? i didn’t become a feminist so that overbearing women who don’t value my worth can take the place of overbearing men who don’t value my worth.

  5. whores against wars
    2 February, 2013

    I don’t want to be protected by other women, especially quasi feminists who don’t even bother to ask my opinion before deciding what course of action to take (usually involving state mandated violence). Go away. You take care of your own bodies and leave us to ours. Bed-sniffing is not a very honourable profession. you protectionists might call it rape, but whatever. go away.

  6. Douglas Fox
    2 February, 2013

    This is an ideological piece. It neither protects or supports women but rather argues an ideological interpretation of the role of both men and women.It judges sex rather than reflects on the sexual reality and needs of both men and women. It assumes only men buy sex. NOT TRUE. It assumes sex workers are all female NOT TRUE. It assumes sex workers are with out any autonomy NOT TRUE.

    One of the ugliest truths of this ideological hatred is that is has nothing to do with sexual equality but everything to do with perpetuating convenient myths that men are violent misogynists and women are pitiful victims.

    The human rights issue? I doubt the author has any issues in meeting her sexual needs, I may be wrong but I doubt it. As a sex worker myself one of the privileges of my work is working with the elderly and the disabled. The mental stress caused through an inability to satisfy the sexual imagination is documented. Having a sexual imagination and finding ways in which to satisfy those needs,of both men and women, is a human right that in no way implies a right to rape. It implies that you can access a consensual relationship. Exchanging money does not in any way limit consent.

    So some sex workers are poorer than others, some enjoy their work and others not so much or even not at all. Welcome to reality, welcome to life for everyone but the tiny privileged few.

    I have been involved in sex work for over fifteen years and have yet to meet a sex worker who HAD to sell sex, who HAD no other choice. Women and men choose sex work because it benefits them as a form of labour better than other forms of labour. I am a sex worker myself who also has another successful career, yet I still sell sex. I do so because I enjoy it, it pays well and it allows me time to do other things, It allows me to have the lifestyle I want.

    This woman only cares for women if they comply with her corrupted presumptions of what a good women is and what a man should be.

    Douglas.

    • Guls
      2 February, 2013

      Several thoughts on this:

      a) sure, at’s piece is ideologically-informed – does that invalidate her opinion? Different perspectives are important (see d) BELOW),
      b) i see no implication in her piece that ONLY men buy sex, rather that the issues she highlights disproportionately affect women. The cases reported at Chaseley were of men buying sex from women, so broadening the debate to include men selling sex is obfuscation; a straw man approach. Whether men are doing the buying or the selling; whether women are doing the buying or the selling, women are disproportionately stigmatized and disproportionately in danger. There may be a mythical aspect to the stereotype of violent men and victimised women, but they’re stereotypes for good reason: they’re very common. As a man, you won’t be subject to the same degree of stigma and violence for selling sex, whether you sell it to women or men (I don’t know which, you don’t say) so whilst I welcome your perspective, to pretend it’s a paradigm for the condition of prostitutes generally would be mistaken,
      c) as I said above, she’s not hating on prostitutes,
      d) a distinguishing characteristic of 2nd wave/’radical’ feminism in contrast to liberalism/liberal feminism (from my point of, admittedly, limited understanding) is the recognition that certain ‘choices’ have implications beyond the individual. Specifically (with regard to this issue) allowing that ‘sex work’ may be a valid choice for individual women, shouldn’t obscure the fact that it has negative repercussions for women as a class, and must be challenged as such. This seems eminently principled to me,
      e) if anybody – man or woman – has sexual needs and cannot – for whatever reason – ‘procure’ (and what a loaded word that is!) a partner, how about having a wank (to put it bluntly.! It’s free and hurts no-one.

      • Editor
        2 February, 2013

        e) if anybody – man or woman – has sexual needs and cannot – for whatever reason – ‘procure’ (and what a loaded word that is!) a partner, how about having a wank (to put it bluntly.! It’s free and hurts no-one.

        You miss the point I made, people just don’t buy sex, they buy more than sex, clients are often buying company, hence so many clients would rather not meet non native English speaking escorts

        Finally the physical, just have a wank does not equate in the same way as sex with someone else. There is the touch and the feel. Read the blogs of escorts, many men who are disabled don’t have sex with the escort, they are not capable, they want the human touch and feel which they don’t get from their carers. Take a read of Lauras blog http://lauraslifeandthoughts.blogspot.co.uk where she reviews the film Sessions, and narates her own experience with disabled men. You may want to check out Madam Becky who has set up Para Doxies, an agency exclusively working with disabled clients, and escorts who feel they can work with disabled clients.

      • Douglas Fox
        2 February, 2013

        “allowing that ‘sex work’ may be a valid choice for individual women, shouldn’t obscure the fact that it has negative repercussions for women as a class, and must be challenged as such. This seems eminently principled to me”

        This is a presumption. Overwhelmingly the negatives within sex work result from the stigma that is dignified by legislation that condemns all sex workers, male and female as being either the victim, which is the stereotype endorsed in the article or as “dirty”, other people who are outside normal society. These presumptions enforce ideals of what a women should be, of what a man is. This article does nothing to offer a differing view but infers that we should adopt a new societal hatred, this time to men, in this particular case elderly men for the crime of being sexual.

        Someone who condemns the clients of sex workers is hardly being supportive of sex workers. Someone who condemns men with such zeal is hardly worthy of being judged a spokesperson for reasoned and informed debate. Certainly she is more than welcome to give her opinion and likewise I am free to give mine. The difference is that her opinion could result in negative consequences for all sex workers, men and women and of course for our clients. Intolerance and hatred and bigotry yes but greater gender equality no.

      • Douglas Fox
        2 February, 2013

        Intolerance and hatred and bigotry yes but greater gender equality no, is the only possible outcome of the ideology this woman preaches.

        Apologies, the last bit of reply did not appear for some reason 😦

      • Nina Perez
        3 February, 2013

        the women are stigmatized, but that is because they are not being listened to and their concerns are not being taken into consideration. you may think ann isn’t hating on prostitutes, but ignoring their voices and thoughts ain’t exactly love. how can she be trying to help sex workers, without first asking which ones like their job compared to which ones want to leave? how can she help when she tells them all their sexual experiences, including ones they have enjoyed, are negative? how can she help when she tells them by doing their chosen job they hurt women everywhere? that isn’t helpful. it’s hamrful because not only have sex workers been marginalized by society, now their fellow women in arms have started treating them like second class citizens as well.

  7. whores against wars
    2 February, 2013

    Sex work is work, and the right to earn a livelihood is a human right. So the Nordic Model also breaches the human rights of sex workers, albeit in an underhanded, stigmatising, passive aggressive way. (Sweden, state ideology scary shit. hello?)

  8. Guls
    2 February, 2013

    @editor I’m sure there WAS a trackback comment on ann tagonist, can’t think how else I would have found this. Interesting blog by the way, will definitely be back to browse some more articles.

    • Editor
      3 February, 2013

      Must have been approved fleetingly, was in moderation and then disappeared completely.

  9. peter schevtschenko
    2 February, 2013

    I wonder if there would have been the same hate had the home had male sex workers providing a service for the male residents, would that have been somehow more acceptable and if so why? is it because society like to infantilise women or hates the idea of women being promiscuous for money?

    • Guls
      2 February, 2013

      Well, I say again: it’s not about hate. For myself, yes, I have the same concerns with regard to prostitution whether the prostitutes in question are male or female. Commodifying sex demeans it in my opinion: the idea of paying a person who isn’t attracted to me and wouldn’t have engaged in it without payment is a hollow proposition.

      • Editor
        2 February, 2013

        That is your opinion and the opinion of others. As such why should your opinion be relevant to those who are buying and selling sexual services. Yes its your opionion, and I understsnd that,but please dont force that opinion on others who dont hold with it.

      • Guls
        2 February, 2013

        @editor I’m not forcing my opinion on peter and nor would I: he asked the question and I gave my honest answer. I don’t presume to speak for anyone else, though based on my experience, proponents of the RadFem position which inspired this post would probably agree.

  10. Guls
    2 February, 2013

    @editor So I guess more clarification is required by precisely what was meant by ‘sex workers’ in the post. If the men are just buying company and not actually having intimate contact then it’s debatable whether ‘sex workers’, never mind ‘prostitutes’ is the appropriate term. It still leaves me uneasy, because

    a) going into homes to work still leaves the workers in a potentially vulnerable position – it would be ableist and narrow-mnded to assume that just because the men in question are disabled that they’re not subject to the same sexist conditioning as other men and/or capable of violence, or that in such instances the women concerned are any more likely to seek legal redress or get fair treatment thru the system if they do, Obviously, other care workers can be equally vulnerable, so it’s not really fair to single ‘sex workers’ out; but either way, the underlying problem of men feeling they’re entitled to sex (or even company) is being dodged. If care workers in homes are being groped and subject to lewd comments then they need to be dealing with that, not passing the buck.

    b) whether the contact being sold is sexual or not, I’d despute that commodifying it is an ethical or moral thing to do. It fails to address the underlying social predjudice against the disabled which erases their sexuality and ability to socialize: in fact, one might suggest it exploits said predjudice for profit, however altruistic the motives of individual workers,

    c) it reinforced the patriarchal role of women as carers and nurturers. There are men taking on such roles, of course; but they’re still in the minority. Gender roles are a factor which shouldn’t be ignored in the rush to rights of the disabled. Intersectionality, anyone?

    That said, I am impressed by Laura’s diary. She certainly doesn’t come across as feeling victimised in her opinion. Also the fact that Para-Doxie is not-for-profit is at least reassuring that their motives aren’t financially-exploitative. I still can’t come to terms with the idea of sex as a human right, in fact, P-D conflates the terms ‘rights’, ‘opportunities’ and ‘privilieges’ within their own disclaimer, which is confusing to say the least. And there is something disturbing about Laura’s testimony regarding dealings with Autistic clients: would tolerating that level of hostility be tolerated if the men in question weren’t autistic? And are the ‘workers’ in question any less affected by it given that they are? There have been a couple threads around this subject on Feministe recently:

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2013/01/24/he-might-be-on-the-spectrum-but-what-about-me/

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2013/01/09/how-not-to-be-a-creep/

    Clearly there are tensions between the conservative position of ‘moral outrage’, the radfem stand against violence towards women and the liberal ‘rights’ agenda; it’s not simple, that I acknowledge.

    • Douglas Fox
      3 February, 2013

      There are a lot of words, presumptions and generalisations being used here which I am uncomfortable with.

      “Going into homes to work still leaves the workers in a potentially vulnerable position – it would be ableist and narrow-mnded to assume that just because the men in question are disabled that they’re not subject to the same sexist conditioning as other men and/or capable of violence, or that in such instances the women concerned are any more likely to seek legal redress or get fair treatment thru the system if they do, Obviously, other care workers can be equally vulnerable, so it’s not really fair to single ‘sex workers’ out; but either way, the underlying problem of men feeling they’re entitled to sex (or even company) is being dodged. If care workers in homes are being groped and subject to lewd comments then they need to be dealing with that, not passing the buck”.

      “Ableist” is one of those ugly and derogatory terms often used by rad fems which infer that a natural inclination to provide succour, care, and companionship is patronising, dehumanising. The comment,” not subject to the same sexist conditioning as other men and/or capable of violence”, is an extraordinary statement to make about another human being. It infers that all men are violent and misogynistic by nature. This statement ignores real people and reduces all human relationships to a convenient stereotype, a little like saying all Muslims are jihadists. Not true and unrepresentative of the huge and diverse variety of human interactions. You are right that no one should be groped and I think that this has been exaggerated to make a point, neither should a persons need for intimacy be ignored. No one should be told that because you’re old, your disabled, you are disgusting.

      b) “whether the contact being sold is sexual or not, I’d despute that commodifying it is an ethical or moral thing to do. It fails to address the underlying social predjudice against the disabled which erases their sexuality and ability to socialize: in fact, one might suggest it exploits said predjudice for profit, however altruistic the motives of individual workers,”

      This is an extraordinary statement. To provide a service of care in no way prejudices the disabled or elderly. If a need exists and can be accommodated consensually, with the wishes and consent of the elderly or disabled person then the provider is enhancing the life experience of that person. The fact that a fee is charged for a sexual service is no different to a fee being charged by the person who changes his/her bed, dressings, attends to their toilet needs etc etc.

      “it reinforced the patriarchal role of women as carers and nurturers. There are men taking on such roles, of course; but they’re still in the minority. Gender roles are a factor which shouldn’t be ignored in the rush to rights of the disabled. Intersectionality, anyone?”

      Where do I start with this one? I remind you that men sell sex to men (and women). Women also buy sex. Hate to tell this truth but they do. Often more subtly than men but buy it they do. How do you stop women from assuming the role of carer? Is this nature or nurture? I don’t have an answer and neither do rad fems. Scientists struggle to answer this one. Anthropologists struggle to answer it. To use it as a brick to beat sex workers over the head with is therefore disingenuous. My view as a man who has been a carer and who also sells sex to men (and sometimes women) is that we have to be more accepting of the natural inclinations to become a carer in the person, regardless of their gender. You cannot force women (or men) to behave to an ideological prototype.

      The problem of course is the rad feminist assumption that selling sex makes heterosexual “sex” violence against women. You yourself have noted that sex must equal attraction, presumably physical? That I would argue is your societal conditioning which makes you very much a part of the prescribed, patriarchal hegemony.
      For me sex is not love. Sex is a physical expression of lust, it is a mechanical procedure. Sexual relations with a client are an extension of my humanity. As a pagan it is also a form of benediction to give consensual physical and emotional joy to another person. My role as a sex worker is to understand and respond to the requirements of my client. No different than any other job where I also have to offer a degree of imagination and creativity. Physical attraction looses its importance when you alter your patriarchal notions of sex as ownership, which is where radical feminist ideology remains trapped despite its protestations otherwise.

  11. whores against wars
    3 February, 2013

    How the hell people can get upset about “commodifying” sex but are seemingly OK with the commodification and destruction of our mother earth is a mystery to me. Mother Earth is also a woman by the way. Where are the fucking feminists come running to save her? Capitalists are such hypocrites by and large, especially the ones from Europe who benefit from the destruction of tribal lands in colonial outposts.

    Sex workers provide a service. They do not “sell” themselves. And some people like cheap sex. Like me for instance… although I like getting big money for it.

    • Guls
      3 February, 2013

      Well, I’m not sure that I, or any other feminists have ever said we were ok about the commodification of ‘Mother Earth’. In fact, the commodification of natural resources is linked, albeit indirectly, to gender-based oppression of women: insofar as there’s good reason to believe that enabling women to better exercise bodily-autonomy and specifically reproductive autonomy would result in a less wasteful and human-centric world.

      And there’s an important distinction to be made between ‘sex-as-commodity’ and other ‘commodities’: we can’t live without food, clothing and shelter: we can live just fine without prostitution, or indeed sexual profligacy in general; specifically the normalcy of PIV that – inside or outside of committed relationships – makes sex a hazardous proposition for women.

      • Douglas Fox
        3 February, 2013

        The celebration of pleasure is a vital component of our shared humanity. Sex has always been a commodity. It is how we survive, it is how we interact on every social level. Selling sex is not the problem, the problem is how we understand and relate to human sexuality and the human sexual imagination. There is nothing natural about our present attitudes toward sex or toward selling or buying sex or in how we understand gender roles within society. They are all prescribed variances of imposed orthodoxies which sex work today ironically challenges.

  12. whores against wars
    3 February, 2013

    Feminists have to state that they are ok with the rape of mother earth. Heard of any feminist action in support of Idle No More? I haven’t. The silence from the feminist (lack of) movement speaks volumes. Ignoring the violence (war without end) to go after the sex. Where are the anti-war feminists now? Oh that’s right. Theyre all fighting trafficking. And aiming for “equality. Stop the sex at any cost. Perpetrate violence in the name of feminism if you have to. As long as people are not having SEX.

    Actually Guls you seem more reasonable than other abolitionist types. At least you are prepared to engage, but preaching to sex workers about ethics shows you dont know much about our movement or how its been building for the last thirty years. Our work as activists is based in ethics, in favour of human rights. Ours is the feminist project. Quite seriously, we are ok with our solidarity model. We don’t want charity or white saviours.

  13. whores against wars
    3 February, 2013

    correction: “Feminists don’t have to state…”.

    Actually, this is a legitimate part of an ongoing feminist debate. The debate about prostitution. But its been hijacked by a war agenda with requisite propaganda. Until there is clarity about the effect that US policy on sex workers globally, there is really no debate.

  14. whores against wars
    3 February, 2013

    I subscribe to the notion that selling sex is a service and that it is important to not confuse capital with labour. You cannot sell yourself, because you get to walk away with your body. A masseuse sells massages. She does not sell her hands.

  15. Pingback: Sex workers back on the care home agenda, say activists « Harlots Parlour

  16. peter schevtschenko
    4 February, 2013

    I find it strange that moral supremacists such as ann tagonist get more upset over voluntary prostitution than they do with forced prostitution

  17. Guls
    4 February, 2013

    @ whores against wars, you’re right that I’m prepared to engage. I’m not an abolotionist per-se, rather I’m persuaded by the feminist argument that ‘choice’ and ‘consent’ are problematic in the current political climate which is decidedly anti-woman. If people – men or women – are choosing to prostitute themselves and finding the work rewarding then all power to them, and to sites and organizations like this which support them. You’re right, my knowledge of the sex workers’ rights movement is scant, and I’ll seek to improve that. I do perceive a distinction to be made between conservative and feminist critiques of prostitution/sex work in terms of their motives, though I appreciate the end effect on individuals must feel equally stigmatizing. Apologies for preaching: not my intention to do that and I’ll try to listen more in future and not give in to knee-jerk responses.

  18. Pingback: Laura Lee surrogate – covered by the Sun « Harlots Parlour

  19. Sailor Barsoom
    5 February, 2013

    Tagonist’s article is creepy. How anybody can be considered a feminist when she makes it clear that EVERY man is ALWAYS more powerful than ANY woman, even if he is in a catatonic state (she used those words: “catatonic state”), is hardly feminist in any meaning of the word which matters. It doesn’t matter if she’s the Taekwondo world champion and a PhD in rocket science and he’s a stupid version of Steven Hawking; he’s got a dick and she doesn’t, so he’s the master and she’s his slave.

    And she seems to actually believe this. And the comments are enough to scare the hair off of me. I suppose that some men would find it a relief to be told that, just by virtue of being male, they are superior to a little over half the human race. How any woman finds that ennobling or empowering or comforting or really anything other than enraging, I’ll probably never know.

  20. Bruce Bates
    12 February, 2013

    I wrote this comment over at the ann tagonist post but doubt it will get approved. so I thought I would share it here. Please do note this was entirely written to the author of that post…. not this one…. nor do I mean to intentionally attack anyone’s view from this post just thought someone here might appreciate it

    ……

    I seriously hope you get sued for slander 100 times over for all the misquotes you have said which are slanderous and libel. On top of this fact you have blatantly lied from start to finish in your post. You are a disgrace to all real feminists everywhere.

    I could take every last sentence of this article apart and show you how many times you have lied, but I think the very first sentence is all I need really… you said more than enough in that opener for me to make my point….

    Sentence 1: you crossed off “inviting in” and replaced it with the word “purchasing”. This is within and of itself a completely FALSE statement.

    The care home attendants did indeed INVITE THEM IN…. NOT purchase them….. nothing written in the article (or about the entire case) leads me to think otherwise. It seems most likely the insurances were the ones purchasing them…. at the request of the patient. If this wasn’t the case, its still more likely the patient paid for them from pocket expenses and relatives paying for the service….

    You replaced the word prostitutes with women….. are you implying all prostitutes are women? Are you implying you know the residents to such an extent that you know they were all straight males and none of them were gay hiring homosexual male prostitutes? I will go out on limb and say…. no you don’t know that, you are just lying.

    See here in NY where I live, rape is defined as sexual intercourse that is forced.

    Are you sure this was rape? Were these prostitutes perhaps at times only hired to give a hand job…. thus rather than being raped wouldn’t that make them the rapist… they are the ones doing the sexual molesting in such a situation.

    In order for something to be rape one person has to actually display some sort of action that would in fact justify the fact they “said no”. The only time I know this to be different is when they are under DIRECT threat. Its rape if someone holds a gun to your head…. its not rape if the person who is threatening you is 20 miles away from you at the time of the sexual act. This means its NOT rape just because “your pimp made you” because….. well you see….. when your pimp sends you to some random address…. YOU make the choice to go in. You could just as easily keep going, hitch-hike a few states away…. boom…. no more pimp. Wow accountability for a grown up to take responsibility for their own actions…. amazing.

    Rape is a fairly big accurization – are you sure not one of these prostitutes were in fact offering a service… in which case it wasn’t forced? By offering a service of course I mean of their own free will. Sure you can still call it rape if they have a pimp, but what about the stripper making $75,000 a year who sleeps with her clients for bonuses…. is she forced, is it rape? Was even one of these prostitutes in such a situation?

    Its nice and easy to make up lies and stories when you are a narcissistic person who warps the realities of the world to fit into their own twisted views. Its even better when you get a whole bunch of brain dead people who can’t think for themselves to start following. Congrats on being self centered and drawing others into your warped world.

    See the truth is you have this thing that the world of prostitution is filled with nothing but rape. You think all women are forced into it. You think all women are either manipulated into it, forced by a pimp, forced into because of poverty, etc (or it seems that you do think that way).

    So do you dismiss all the high class prostitutes in the world as flukes? Or do you intentionally forget they exist? See I remember one of the governors of New York a few years back stepping out of office because he was found to be hiring prostitutes…. after questioned…. those prostitutes were HAPPYILY reporting they were making upward of $2000 for an evening. Kind of makes your entire belief system fall about… then again so does every high class sex work in Las Vagas who wouldn’t dream of being a “street walker” nor taking clients who make under 8 figures a year.

    Your views on prostitution… are entirely manipulated to suit your world…. so again I say…. ts nice and easy to make up lies and stories when you are a narcissistic person who warps the realities of the world to fit into their own twisted views

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on 1 February, 2013 by in Feminism, VAW and tagged , , , .
%d bloggers like this: