No bad whores, just bad laws

Mahhrat says:

08:19am | 02/06/11

Not to mention taxed.

Erick says:

08:30am | 02/06/11

The sexual marketplace is governed by supply and demand. Since most of the supply is controlled by women, while most of the demand comes from men, the current situation is disadvantageous to men.

More prostitution means more supply, and a subsequent lowering of price. This is good for men. While prostitution is itself a form of exploitation of men for the benefit of women, it is far less exploitative than Marriage 2.0.

So the legalisation or decriminalisation of the sex industry is of benefit to social equality.

fairsfair says:

08:47am | 02/06/11

look forward to sketchy details of a “Whoring Super Profits Tax” to be released by Gillard.

Tubesteak says:

09:11am | 02/06/11

If it’s a registered brothel then it will be a registered business and will be paying 30% tax on net profits.

At least that’s the case in NSW.

Sid says:

09:36am | 02/06/11

Forget taxing sex - it’s masturbation where the real money is.

Anubis says:

09:46am | 02/06/11

@ fairsfair - you will never see that legislation from Gillard. It would cost her plenty because she would have to pay out for the whoring she has done with the Greens

progressivesunite says:

10:10am | 02/06/11

@ Erick - “prostitution is a form of exploitation of men for the benefit of women” - I know you have some very bitter views about women, and at heart you are frightened of women, but that’s shocker, even for you!!

Some news that you may have missed - women don’t exist to service men, sexually or otherwise. You don’t have a right to increased “supply” of women’s bodies - if you can’t get it, bad luck. Women can choose whether to sleep with you (or “supply” you, as a sex worker or otherwise), end of story : ) Women aren’t a commodity - we’re people.

and “marriage 2.0” - let me guess, would that be marriage where women aren’t owned by their husbands or totally economically dependent on them, marriage where rape in marriage is now illegal? that sort of thing? yeeees, poor men, what’s the world come to when women are your equals??

Rick says:

10:12am | 02/06/11

No bad whores? I know a few in Melborne who are pretty bad.I guess you get what you pay for.

AAAdam says:

10:37am | 02/06/11

@ progressivesunite - What’s the difference between buying sex from a hooker or paying someone to lift heavy things? In essence, you are just purchasing someones labour for a period of time. And no-one is saying they have a “right” to such things, just that the free market should be allowed to function freely.

Erick says:

10:37am | 02/06/11

@progressivesunite - Prostitution exploits men by using a male need to generate money. Of course, it could be argued that any other service exploits the client too, so that’s semi-facetious. However, it’s women who profit from prostitution.

Here’s some brief description of Marriage 2.0. Use Google to find out more.

Septimus says:

10:53am | 02/06/11

Says a lot about yourself doesn’t it Sid?

AliceC says:

11:12am | 02/06/11

@Erick
“@progressivesunite - Prostitution exploits men by using a male need to generate money. Of course, it could be argued that any other service exploits the client too, so that’s semi-facetious. However, it’s women who profit from prostitution.”

So, if men said no to prostitution, then those prostitutes cannot make money. Correct?

progressivesunite says:

11:21am | 02/06/11

@ Erick - but what’s the problem then? How are men being exploited? Some women have a service to sell, some men choose to buy the service - isn’t that just a market? Men aren’t being “exploited”, they don’t have to purchase the service if they don’t want to - it’s a free choice to do so isn’t it - I’m not sure I get the “need” part - it’s not like water, food, shelter. The only options for men, actually for anyone regardless of gender, are to have sex with someone who wants to have sex with you, pay someone who does it as a job, or don’t have sex - otherwise you’re in the territory of forcing someone - and surely that’s not an option.

@ AAAdam - it’s not the market stuff that bothers me, it’s Erick’s view that men are somehow exploited in the transaction that I don’t get

Sid says:

11:40am | 02/06/11

@Septimus - I just have an eye for value, is all.

Tim says:

11:43am | 02/06/11

Progressivesunite,
did you just say that having sex isn’t a need like food, water or shelter?
Maybe you should look up biological imperatives.

Luce says:

12:09pm | 02/06/11

Indeed, Erick, because men are the only ones who are ever exploited, particularly in the sex industry….

Bobster says:

12:10pm | 02/06/11

Erick is right to a point.

Prostitution should be about the exploitation of men (forgetting, for the sake of argument, that there are plenty of blokes on the game as well) but under SA’s current puritan laws, it’s about the exploitation of women.

Put laws in place that put women in control of how they run their business and the sexual exploitation will shift towards the men.

The only difference will be that the men aren’t being coerced (by anything other than their usual little stand-over man) and everyone is happy.

You can’t use your own repressed views on sex to claim that any and all prostitutes are being exploited.

nb, little disconcerted by Erick’s overt joy at the prospect of lower prices, but it is what it is.

progressivesunite says:

12:31pm | 02/06/11

@ Tim - no, it’s not a need like food, shelter, water - too long without any of them you drop dead….If you don’t get enough sex, it won’t kill you…as for it being a biological imperative, are you referring to reproduction? If so, you only ‘need’ to do that a couple of times in your life to keep the human race going…and even then not everyone needs to contribute

Lily says:

12:38pm | 02/06/11

@ Erick, pretty sure you’ll find that prostitutes aren’t all women…
I’m all for regulation. Have no problem with hookers that choose to sell their wares, or those who choose to buy them. Wouldn’t do it myself because I’m too precious and not good looking enough to command the price I’d need someone to pay…
Only problem I have is with the exploitation especially of minors and those that keep that side of the industry afloat. At the end of the day it is a transaction and a service and should have the same regulations as anything else and regulation would help with the exploitation side.

dancan says:

12:43pm | 02/06/11

Wow Eric.  You’ve always been sitting on the side of woman hating, fear inducing boogy man, but you’re arguments have generally had some merit to them. But this whole line of prostitutes are exploiting men though their NEED of sex

Wow.  Just wow.

dancan says:

12:53pm | 02/06/11

damn it Eric you’re just spew far too much crap for me to keep up!

“Prostitution exploits men by using a male need to generate money. Of course, it could be argued that any other service exploits the client too, so that’s semi-facetious. However, it’s women who profit from prostitution.”

Do you see the glaring contradiction here?  You’re claiming that prostitutes are exploiting men though our need to generate money?  Wouldn’t this need to generate money circumvent the desire to spend money since it’s so core to who we are?  The idea that somehow men are forced to pay for sex because we earn money is one of the most absurd things I’ve seen you write.

Or are you suggesting that men are complete slaves to our sexual urges and not satisfying this urge renders us useless in all forms?  Therefore prostitutes are preying on this urge, this need as you put it in the same way a crack dealer exploits the junkie.  And as a result of this dealer, junkie relationship men are required to constantly work for more money to pay for their habit.

Tubesteak says:

01:21pm | 02/06/11

Progressivesunite
If you think sex isn’t a need then you should look up Maslow’s hierarchy and a number of other studies showing this need in humans.

Just because you want die from it automatically doesn’t mean it isn’t as valid a need as oxygen.

Friendship and human contact also isn’t a need according to your definition so we could do without that too, couldn’t we?

progressivesunite says:

01:38pm | 02/06/11

@ Tubesteak - life is much better with good sex than without any, and with friendship than without - I just don’t get how sex is soooo imperative that, according to Erick and Tim, men are easily exploited by women because men “need” it.  You don’t see women visiting prostitutes in nearly the same numbers that men do - surely if sex was such a human “need”, women would be in the same boat as men? I think some men just want women to think that they “need” it and that women have a responsibility to provide it….

progressivesunite says:

01:45pm | 02/06/11

one more thing…if men do actually “need” sex more than women “need” sex (and I remain to be convinced), then that’s just bad luck and you have to get over it/get used to it…(like women get used to periods, childbirth blah blah)

Erick says:

02:01pm | 02/06/11

@Dancan - that’s not how I meant the comment, but I can see that my phrasing was ambiguous.

I intended to say that prostitution exploits the needs of men, by selling sex for money - not that men have an a priori need to generate money.

Though it could be argued that millennia of social evolution have in fact given men a need to generate money. That’s an interesting idea worth a bit of thought.

Erick says:

02:05pm | 02/06/11

@progressivesunite - The fact that men use prostitutes more than women do is a consequence of men’s need for sex. Also, men can and do die for lack of sex - this is the cause of many suicides.

If men can “get over” their need for sex, then as far as I’m concerned, women can “get over” their need for food, shelter, clothing, and all the other things men provide.

Luce says:

02:14pm | 02/06/11

Tubesteak, your comparison doesn’t really stand up. You’re comparing a physical need (oxygen, without which we would die in a few minutes) to something which, when we have it regularly, can be beneficial for our psychological welfare, but is not so much of a need that we will actually die without it. Come on, even you must admit that’s a little melodramatic.

As for human contact and friendship, yes we definitely need those, but those aren’t the same as sex, and I don’t know of too many people who will go out and pay for them.

Robyn Few says:

02:38pm | 02/06/11

Happy, happy Whore’s Day!
WHORE We Honor Ourselves with Respect and Empowerment.
New Zealand and Australia are leading the world in sex worker law reform. We are all watching and trying to follow in your footsteps. Love to all
Robyn Few
Sex Workers Outreach Project USA

progressivesunite says:

02:46pm | 02/06/11

@ Erick - seriously??? Men die from lack of sex because they kill themselves over it? That’s absolutely ridiculous! Either you’re going way over the top to prove a point, or you think men are truly, utterly pathetic. I’ll buy that people (not just men) may well commit suicide over being totally isolated and lonely, but that’s got nothing to do with sex…

As for the ‘50s comment about women getting shelter in return for providing sex, women can buy our own shelter now so bang goes your plan there….here’s a novel idea - sex might have to be something that women choose and want to have with men, rather than something women need to give in order to eat (remember that rape in marriage has now been outlawed, by the by so women are allowed to choose)...Oh dear, not looking good for some blokes is it?

Erick says:

03:13pm | 02/06/11

@progressivesunite - All your comments simply reflect your fear and hatred of men.

Luce says:

03:21pm | 02/06/11

Jesus, Erick. You really blow me away with your attitudes on gender sometimes. Words are inadequate.

A lot of women can now afford their own food and shelter and all the other things men used to provide, funnily enough because women are now treated more as equals in society. Damn those pesky feminists and the opportunities they provided us!! I, for one, plan to have total financial independence always, regardless of my marital status.

I wonder if there’s been an increase in the use of prostitutes by men ever since women felt empowered enough to take control of their own lives and say no to sex when they weren’t interested, instead of having to trade sex for the real necessities in life…..

progressivesunite says:

03:31pm | 02/06/11

@ Erick - I have no fear or hatred of men (unlike your relentless fear and hatred of women). I just give men more credit than you do….I think they have agency, you think they are infants in constant danger from the big bad lady-monsters.

Cloud Strife says:

03:38pm | 02/06/11

@Erick

What, these guys don’t have a hand?

Erick says:

04:00pm | 02/06/11

@Luce - So you might think, given your sheltered and privileged female position in a very abstract, and fragile, economy. Because those things are currently available to you.

But you fail to realise where your illusion of self-sufficiency comes from. Who made the house you live in? Men. Who provides the electricity, water and sewers that make it liveable? Men. Who grows the food you eat, and transports it to the supermarket? Men.

Women in current Western society are enormously pampered and privileged, granted incredible wealth. But all of that comes from the ingenuity and effort of men.

If men were not so generous, you would have what you deserve - nothing.

Lostie says:

04:03pm | 02/06/11

@progressivesunite:

“Men die from lack of sex because they kill themselves over it? That’s absolutely ridiculous!”

I do recall reading research some times ago that showed a correlation between suicide rates and the absence of sex (something about a very significant number of males who committed suicide had not had sex regularly in the proceeding months). This was particularly for young males (under 35) and the data did not support the same correlation in respect of female suicides.

I dare say that it is plausible. Life could be a very lonely, depressing place if there is no one in the world that will share that act of intimacy with you.

How much would one feel unloved, unworthy if there was no one that would share that intimacy with them? Surely, you can concede that this could trigger depression and ultimately suicide.

progressivesunite says:

04:04pm | 02/06/11

@ Cloud Strief - indeed re hands…I get worried when some men on here seem to imply that women have a responsibility to be men’s mastabatory aids, like women’s interest or enjoyment is really some optional extra…

@ Luce - you put my thoughts much better than I did….

progressivesunite says:

04:21pm | 02/06/11

@ Erick - men build houses and grow food and stuff for sex and women? I thought they got paid?

That aside, there are women who do all those things too you know….I even know a female engineer!! Imagine that!!

progressivesunite says:

04:43pm | 02/06/11

@ Lostie - You might be right, but it doesn’t sound like a causal factor to me - I know loneliness would certainly be linked to suicide, I suspect that would be the problem, rather than not having sex per se - and maybe the men who didn’t have regular sex before they committed suicide were depressed and didn’t seek out sex if you know what I mean?

If I sounded flippant, it was because Erick seems hellbent on convincing people that if women don’t give men what they want when they want it, they’re directly responsible for men committing suicide. I just think that’s juvenile and don’t think women have that responsibility…

Luce says:

04:57pm | 02/06/11

You sure are a charming guy, Erick.

Sure, men built a lot of the society we live in, however that is changing every day. And maybe if women hadn’t been kept at home by their husbands and society for so long, it would have changed a lot earlier. Women are a lot smarter then you give them credit for, and it only does a disservice to yourself and society to deride them the way you so often do.

Women are granted incredible wealth?? Please, tell me where and how. I would love to access this magical pool of money. If you’re referring to sugar daddies and their trophy women, sex is still required as payment. If you’re referring to stay at home mums, know that they work exceptionally hard to keep a home and raise children, something which most men take completely for granted.

And the generosity of men? What about the generosity of women? No man has to go through anything half as painful as childbirth (except maybe in the opening scenes of private ryan), without which none of us would be here, including you. Not to mention the time and energy mothers spend raising their children. This generosity you speak of goes both ways. Bloody well grow up and realise that life is not all about the plight of men, as you claim all the time. Its seriously painful how narrow your view of the world is.

Luce says:

05:14pm | 02/06/11

@progressivesunite, thanks

Fiiona says:

07:07pm | 02/06/11

Wtf erick?? You surely do come out with some doozies. Of what benefit to women is it to f*^k complete strangers? They may very well be repellent to her, but they have the money so they get the service, despite the prostitutes thoughts about their customers.
They get well paid for a nasty job.

Fiona says:

07:50pm | 02/06/11

Tim, Tim, Tim, haven’t you realized that procreation (which is the primary reason for sex) isn’t an actual need because you won’t die if you don’t get it, you just won’t breed the next generation.

Fiona says:

07:57pm | 02/06/11

Erick, step away from the computer…...obviously it has fried your brain.
Or you’re trolling

Rabecca says:

10:19am | 03/06/11

Having read all your comments here Erick I can honestly say, as a sex worker, that I would say no to you as a client. I do not need your money nor would I want to spend time with you for even 5 minutes. As a sex worker, in NSW, where we work within a decriminalised framework, I have that right. I think that is what you’re afraid of - that even sex workers will be so empowered with rights in SA that you can’t try to preside over them.  And you’ll still end up a wanker!!!

As someone said - “what’s wrong with your hand?”

As for prices - prices for private independent sex workers in NSW are higher than our collegues in SA. It’s ridiculous to think that just because the laws change more people will enter the industry.

As for taxes - how do you think we pay for our mortgage, our rent, our credit card bill or our kids schooling? I can assure you that sex workers pay taxes and quite frankly - it’s none of your business: it’s for the ATO to follow up on. Just like all those other cash industries (such as the MEN who come to see us as clients who are in the building trade or run their own business who skim off the top to pay for our services!!)

Please stop typing and start reading to see why Decriminalisation of the sex industry is so important.

et al says:

11:31am | 03/06/11

progressivesunite: ” one more thing…if men do actually “need” sex more than women “need” sex (and I remain to be convinced), then that’s just bad luck and you have to get over it/get used to it…(like women get used to periods, childbirth blah blah)”

The first things that needs clearing up here is that Erick cannot differentiate between sex and affection. The same could be said of many other men who are guided by their obsession with their genitalia.

It’s a battle we sensitively motivated gentleman have to fight all the time. The dreadfully low standards displayed by the unsophisticated rabble and planted in the female mind.

The worst of it is that Erick encourages the thought that men are dying for sex. Though to be sure, it is easy to see how this may be in the interests of the feminine gender to encourage the prospect of sexual necessity in their male associates.

The other point I notice Erick has missed, is that in order to profit from sexual services one must first cover the costs. Men who have their needs dissipated by the welcome services of the sex industry are getting a real bargain when compared with those who go through long term investment and development projects that frequently result in one of the partners walking away with all the assets.

As a business proposition, marriage is really quite poor. A far better arrangement is to buy a dog that is toilet trained and that expires every 11 years.  Business is after-all business.

Anthony Meaney says:

01:01pm | 03/06/11

Calling it a house of ill repute certainly is appropriate Mr James,because the last state Labor government,because of their many stuff-ups,illegalities and prorogueing confirmed that the said government couldn’ t run a brothel (properly)

Anubis says:

09:47am | 02/06/11

@Stephy - that is one of the aims of the Gay movement. To decriminalise gay sex in public places because they consider that it being illegal is discrimination against gays

Anubis says:

09:47am | 02/06/11

@Stephy - that is one of the aims of the Gay movement. To decriminalise gay sex in public places because they consider that it being illegal is discrimination against gays

David Stasey says:

10:58am | 02/06/11

@Anubis- then there is one of the aims of the Fundamentalist Christian movement. To criminalise gay sex in private places because they consider that it being legal is discrimination against Fundamentalist Christians.
See what I did there? You people are just too easy.

Eleanor says:

11:21am | 02/06/11

I for one, would not have a problem with this at all.

Chris L says:

11:54am | 02/06/11

That’s right Stephy, the only alternative to making sex between people who are not a heterosexual married couple illegal is to allow “rutting in the streets”. There’s definately no ground between these two options.

MichaelM says:

11:56am | 02/06/11

Stephy, isn’t the whole idea of legalising brothels to allow discreet and private service?

Anubis says:

12:00pm | 02/06/11

@David Staphy - Unless sex in public places is decriminalised for ALL aspects of society then I do not see why the Gay community should stand out for special treatment. Personally I would not like to see either option legislated as I do not feel that a simple trip to the local park should mean that my children would inadvertently be exposed to seeing people engaged in what is an adult activity, whether it be straight or gay sex.

David Stasey says:

12:45pm | 02/06/11

@Anubis.
Can you show me where I said that sex in front of children should be allowed.
While you’re at it show where gays are advocating that it should be.
Not being from SA (or gay - not that it’s anyone’s business and only pointed out to show why I might have overlooked such a momentous movement) I might be ignorant of this and need to be enlightened. (There’s something you’ll never hear a religious nuttbagger say.)
Oh, and if you want to me to take you seriously then grow a spine and put your name to to your comments.

Kevin says:

01:14pm | 02/06/11

@Anubis
If your children are going to the local park at 3am they shouldn’t be surprised at what they see.

Anubis says:

01:18pm | 02/06/11

@David Stasey - the following from the Policy statements of the Greens

* remove convictions for consensual homosexual acts from legal records.
* end the inappropriate application of offensive behaviour, indecent behaviour, ‘promotion’ and incitement laws to non-heterosexual acts.

It was only within the last couple of weeks thatone of the rabid Greens posters to this site outlined that they wanted to remove legal restrictions on gays having sex in public places stating that it was disriminatory for them to be charged for offensive behaviour if caught having sex in public places. This came out the day after the newspaper report about the Victorian Welfare workers who abandoned a young homeless child one night in a park known as a gay pickup/make out place.

David Stasey says:

02:22pm | 02/06/11

Why do I get sucked in to arguing with idiots.
First look up “inappropriate” (you may also want to look up “cognitive dissonance” at this point to save time since you are going to have to reread all your posts together.)
Now try again. Show me where even the most “militant” gays and/or greens are pushing for anything more than equity. (Tip: I repeat, no-one of any persuasion has suggested the right to have sex in front of children.
If you don’t get it this time some else will have to help you. I am not replying to a jackal headed god of the dead again. Spare me.

DaveinPerth says:

12:57am | 04/06/11

Rutting - clearly a word we don’t hear enough of these days.

Vince says:

08:52am | 02/06/11

Considering someone’s wealth as part of your determination as to whether you want to have a relationship with them doesn’t make you a “whore”, just shallow.

But I really do think you should try batting from the other side.  You kind of sound like you’re just making up an excuse about women being “whores” to justify your not-so-secret longing to bang men.

SydSteve says:

08:56am | 02/06/11

I have never been asked how much I earn on a date. I think you need to raise the caliber of girls you’re dating.

fairsfair says:

08:57am | 02/06/11

You just haven’t met the right one mate. There has got to be some decent ones out there.

I am in the same position. Nay can I find just a normal man who is not interested in himself and himself only. I am constantly having people grandstand just how fantastic they are, how much they own whoopdefreakingdoo. I am just not interested in that crap and I will not sit through dinner with you while you tell me what kind of four wheeler you are buying (sadly, yes, that has happened). Your dates sound more like job interviews.

Choosing to believe that it will happen when it happens. There has got to be a man out there who does not have his head firmly implanted up his own….

As for the prozzies - totally agree. They are offering a service and it should be regulated as to allow for safety, payment of tax and all the perks offered by secure employment. I don’t frequent the brothel in my town, I know where it is and I hardly think its existance is hurting me.

Erick says:

09:09am | 02/06/11

Not all women are so mercenary. Unfortunately, the bad ones aren’t always so obvious. And with Australia’s anti-male family law establishment, greedy women can take the children, income and property of innocent men with government support.

Certainly non-gay marriage, cohabitation or fatherhood are extremely risky for men in our sexist society.

BL says:

09:17am | 02/06/11

But Vince, he’s right. Women are whores. It’s been proven time and time again. They just want men for money and to have everything paid for, or do you really think Brynne Eddleston is with some wrinkly old man out of “love”. Fed up, try men, they are the better option. No mind games, no using. Gay men tend know what they want anyway, and im sure being stable, employed an “cute” will get you a nice guy. Stay away from women. They are users and will milk you for everything you have, just ask any man who’s had to have a divorce.

AdamC says:

09:39am | 02/06/11

“A gay friend of mine recently said I should bat for the other team as Im ‘cute” and would have no problems finding a man. 10 years ago I would never have thought about sex or a relationship with a man… “

I was kinda waiting for this one as I read down the article. Sounds like some rationalisation may be going on here.

Incidentally, my boyfriend asked me how much I earned the first time we met, at a party. It wasn’t even a date! Mind you, I was earning about the same as you at that time, and he still wanted to see me. So maybe gay men aren’t as mercenary as women.

Straight people don’t tlike to think of the dating and marriage process as a ‘market’, but it is. And, everyone in the market has a market value, based on particular metrics, which differ a bit between genders. For a man, a primary driver of partnering ‘worth’ is his financial worth. It’s always been that way, Fed Up.

If you want to attract slimmer women, get a fatter wallet.

fairsfair says:

10:29am | 02/06/11

I agree Adam, but as with your partner’s decision to keep seing you, what you earn should hardly be as exclusionary as an infectious rash!

It does have a bearing, becuase it tells you perhaps how commited a person is or their personal work ethic, but I would prefer to get that kind or information by asking what they do for a living, their job etc. I think it rude to talk about money anyway, even if you are just spruiking about how much you have.

I think you boys are right though. As annoying as the men I have recently met have been - I’m not thinking of jumping the fence. Fed Up, I say give it a whirl, maybe that is the real reason why you have not yet found the “one”.

Slothy says:

10:48am | 02/06/11

Funny, Fed Up et al, considering I earn nearly twice my partner’s salary, I was under the impression that I was with him because he was hot, sweet, funny, intelligent and passionate. Turns out I’ve been way off track this whole time. BRB, off to quit my job and start planning my new lifestyle!

Michael says:

11:05am | 02/06/11

You need to learn how to spin it mate, you earn 60k but surely there are perks ie. free coffee at work do the sums add it to your gross, free puter time $$kching, potential for O/T kching it’s about earnings potential not realised earnings.

Success is a view point, learn to see from hers, whomever she is and sell to that market

Tim says:

11:49am | 02/06/11

This is why men make up fake job names.
You’re not a garbo, you’re a waste collection manager.
You’re not a plumber, you’re a sanitation engineer.
You’re not an electrician, you’re a energy specialist.

Slothy,
So the first reason you list that you’re with your partner is because he’s hot? Interesting.
Sounds like you’ve got yourself a toyboy.

Michael says:

12:31pm | 02/06/11

The other query here is, why do you tell them? If a woman on a first date asked me that question (which they haven’t yet) I’d wouldn’t actually give the answer.

AdamC says:

12:49pm | 02/06/11

Fairs, I meant see me romantically, not simply be prepared to be in the same room as me!

Keen Observer says:

12:50pm | 02/06/11

Women arnt all like that, I am 35, unmarried and have dated many lovely women who were (mostly) more than happy to pay their share. Having said that they wanted me to pay my share as well. Sounds like you need to find better people to date.

Lily says:

01:21pm | 02/06/11

WTF? Where are you picking up these women? I’d put my money on a dating website and they are the ones looking for marriage or centrelink… who has that discussion on a first date? Why are you dating the chronically unemployed? And seriously, if you managed to find 6 women like that then I’d look at the common denomiator of you rather than making sweeping generalisations….
I think you need to focus less on their weight and more on their personality… and with currently your not going to get far with any woman with a degree of self worth and self respect. Stop being such a sad panda or get a better job because with your attitude I think you might have to buy a gold digger and $60k a year ain’t gonna get you a good one.

Michael says:

01:29pm | 02/06/11

All of those of us who work for a living are whores, we all rent our body and mind for someone elses benefit, just some of us command a higher rate. I guess that makes the Goverment and all the welfare recipients pimps, living off the proceeds.
If Men want to reduce the power that women have over them through sex, then they need to take a step back and tell them they don’t want it, no demand ...no supply. Sex is something (in my opinion) that the government should just stay right out of. Essentially I believe that the govt. should only be administering our necessary infrastructure. They already have too many fingers in too many pies.

?? says:

02:49pm | 02/06/11

i ask them what they earn first. if she not an absolute stunner, then she better be making some serious bread before i committ, too.

Kate says:

06:34pm | 02/06/11

I’m marrying a guy who earns less than me, and I don’t care. If I want money I’ll go out and earn it myself, thanks. And I have never, in my life, turned down a guy because of their pay packet. I have turned people down for being whiny, entitled wankers who believe that women should just fall down on their knees and blow them because they’re such “nice guys”.

Fiona says:

08:12pm | 02/06/11

Fine, go bat for the other side then. You don’t earn that much. I earn as much as you and I don’t think it’s great, you may find that women in my wage range don’t think it’s heaps for the same reason. That said it was very rude of these women to make that comment, but thinking a whole gender are whores isn’t called for.

Elizabeth says:

06:23am | 07/06/11

You are assuming they want your money - could it be they are protecting their own? For example if I engage in certain actiivies that require a certain level of disposable income and my partner is not able I may be expected to fill the gap. I have had plenty of partners who can not afford their lifestyle and want me to pay for them.

Jason Todd says:

02:09pm | 02/06/11

I have always wondered, how can it be illegal to sell something that you can legally give away for free?

Erick says:

03:03pm | 02/06/11

@Lostie - Such a detailed and thoughtful comment shouldn’t go unacknowledged. While I had nothing to say about it, I did read all of it.

Lostie says:

03:47pm | 02/06/11

@Jason:

there are some things (such as human organs) that can be given for free but not sold. the point is that this applies consistently through the life of an individual - and relates to the sanctity of the human body. Allowing people to sell organs after a certain age would pose the same inconsistency.

@Erick:

Thanks. Hopefully your response (and Jason’s) will encourage further discussion about the “half way point” that Ms Key seems to be advocating.

Tim says:

09:31am | 02/06/11

Why don’t you give yourself a birthday present at your local brothel?
Actually, because it’s a double celebration day, why not make it a double present and have a threesome?

Tubesteak says:

01:18pm | 02/06/11

I was thinking that but Thursdays just aren’t the best days. Usually it’s Friday or Saturday when the best selection is available.

But I’ve had a real drop in libido lately. Not sure why. Just not much interest. I don’t think anything is wrong and I don’t feel depressed, just lost interest…..

Eva says:

03:45pm | 02/06/11

Tubesteak,

I get the most of my business on Thursdays, perhaps the good ones are already booked.

Tubesteak says:

04:57pm | 02/06/11

Eva
That’s probably the problem. The good ones are already taken! I find that less of a problem on Fridays and Saturdays.

bec says:

05:55pm | 02/06/11

Isn’t it because Thursday is payday in the public sector?

Anubis says:

10:14am | 02/06/11

@ Cybacat you said “Prostitution is filled with stories of women coerced into it, or using it as a last resort when times are tough or to support a drug addiction.  ”

Just change the word Prostitution to marriage and your comment is still just as factual

roger says:

12:24pm | 02/06/11

So by criminalizing it you are reducing the seediness or somehow making it less crime-filled? Is it really easier for women to avoid coercion if they cannot speak to police without fear? Ensuring they are paid correctly and provided with proper health services will hurt these unfortunate women? Criminalizing somehow stops it from occurring?

hugh says:

10:19am | 02/06/11

Unless, the first instance of prostitution occurred as follows:

Pro: I’ll give you sex if you go and kill me that thing over there, give me some shelter and stop other things from killing me

Guy: Well, I better get to work

In this instance, the contract between the vendor and customer is made before the provision of the skills and services of the customer are handed over - thereby allowing the prostitution to occur pre-any other profession being taken up… but this scenario is unlikely

Anubis says:

12:02pm | 02/06/11

@ hugh - Are you describing the beginning of sex-as-trade or the beginning of marriage ?

stevem says:

01:03pm | 02/06/11

Perhaps the older professions have vanished. There is very little need for the “sabre tooth tiger guard” for the cave these days.

et al says:

10:13am | 03/06/11

No doubt it wasn’t really an apple that Eve was offering Adam. Merely a neat conservative way of describing the exchange. So who was the hunter, Adam or Eve?

I say Eve.

thelburden says:

09:43am | 02/06/11

Rumour has it that sneaking in the back door cost’s taxpayer’s extra.

Eva says:

03:48pm | 02/06/11

I have been thinking about this today since reading the article. I hear from too many men about being ripped off and having no recourse. Perhaps governments could get serious about ensuing that Pro’s can get insurance and that their customers can get recourse when the service they contract for is not provided.

Fiona says:

08:24pm | 02/06/11

Xxx, it sounds like you have paid the bad ones if you know so much about them!!

XXX says:

12:27pm | 03/06/11

@ Fiona

no I gave then a $50.00 “cancellation fee” so they would go away!!

Fiona says:

04:08pm | 03/06/11

Oh, escorts. So you were shallowly judging them on their looks then.

fairsfair says:

09:56am | 02/06/11

I don’t think it will ever be socially accepted though Adam (and rightly so). Even with legalised prostitution there is always going to be in-home sex and streetside solicitation that means sex can be had discretely.

In Cairns, the knock shop is right next door to the Department of Transport. WTF? I cack myself everytime I go to pay my rego late as who would wheel in a visible driveway in an industrial area? It does a roaring trade when the US navy ships are in town.

I think it leaves those people really exposed. They too should be regulated to a point that perhaps they have to register their movements and “clock in” so to speak.

There will always be people who won’t want to conform to the any legalised structure and sadly there will always be people like that man who is currently on a rampage in Long Island.

AdamC says:

10:34am | 02/06/11

Sounds like a crappy location, Fairs. I grew up near a brothel. It was in a light industrial area of Oakleigh, in Melbourne’s south east. While the area didn’t get a lot of through-traffic, the people working in the surrounding warehouses would have seen quite a bit of the regular punters.

Kate says:

06:40pm | 02/06/11

There’s a really bad setup in Richmond, a brothel/strip club. I haven’t actually walked past it on street level, but it has that ‘discreet’ parking lot around the back. Only problem is, the entire car park is visible from all the train lines that run past. When the train stops, you can literally sit there with a pen and paper recording the license plates of the clientele if you so wish. I don’t think they thought that out well…

stevem says:

01:07pm | 02/06/11

That rule becomes very difficult to maintain. Suppose a brothel is in a building for a decade and a school then opens 190m away. Should the brothel be forced to move? Should the brothel’s existence stop a school from opening?

progressivesunite says:

10:14am | 02/06/11

She doesn’t sell herself for sex, she consents to specific activities with her client, for payment - if he does anything else, against her wishes, she hasn’t consented and it’s sexual assault…. Or do you think you’re being funny there? Rape and funny don’t really go together do they?

Conservatives Unite! (AdamC) says:

10:28am | 02/06/11

I don’t really have that much to say, I just wanted to dust off the old Conservative Unite! pseudonym. And I dunno if you are being deadpan or veing serious, Peter, which makes it rather difficult to know how to respond.

Erick says:

10:32am | 02/06/11

@progressivesunite - “Rape and funny don’t really go together do they? “

No more or less than murder and funny, or assault and funny. But there are plenty of jokes about those.

You’re putting women in a privileged position by trying to make a special exemption from humour for rape. It’s a reflection of your deeply rooted sexism.

progressivesunite says:

11:26am | 02/06/11

@ Erick - no, joking about rape is deeply rooted sexism… Jokes about murder or assault aren’t funny either, but then pretty much everyone agrees murder and assault are wrong - there are still people in society who think that rape, especially if the girl is drunk or knows the guy, is just laddish ‘boys will be boys’ silliness…. (and for the record, I would think joking about men being raped was unfunny, too)

@ AdamC - glad to be of service

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:29am | 02/06/11

Peter, deep down all sex is theft.

Bev says:

12:27pm | 02/06/11

@progressivesunite joking about rape is deeply rooted

But only about women.  If the following cartoon had a woman as the subject all hell would break loose.
sexismhttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gallery-e6frg6zx-1111119668403?page=2
For the record over there are over 400,000 reported cases of rape in US male prisons. The total number is unknown. Authorities are completely indifference to this fact.  Some feminists (and others) have remarked that “they deserve it”  they are male criminals and deserve what ever happens to them, totally overlooking the fact that the majority are not violent criminals and/or rapists. I do not know the stats for Australia we are not told.

AAAdam says:

01:36pm | 02/06/11

It would be more interesting to ask what happens if you had sex with a hooker than refused to pay after. Cleary it is not rape as the act was consensual and contracts for anything illegal are not enforceable (So if it is illegal in SA a court wouldn’t enforce the contract, whereas ACT and other places probably would). That is assuming the judge found a legal contract existed, which without the crucial element of “consideration” (i.e. money changing hands) I doubt they would.

I also wonder if the standard suite of consumer protections apply to such transactions in the states where it is legal. I’d say some hookers clearly breach the “ misleading and deceptive conduct ” provisions of the new Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Especially when they misrepresent their age, looks or the quality of their services. Here is a cut and paste from the ACCC website:

If the overall impression left by an advertisement, promotion, quotation, statement or other representation made by a business creates a misleading impression in your mind—such as to the price, value or the quality of any goods and services—then the conduct is likely to breach the law.

AAAdam says:

01:41pm | 02/06/11

P.S. “no, joking about rape is deeply rooted sexism…”

How so? Rape can occur to both men and women. For your comment to make sense you’d have to be assuming only one gender is ever raped and those who make the jokes are only from the opposite gender. But then, that would make you the sexist…

stevem says:

01:46pm | 02/06/11

Everybody consents to sex under certain conditions and has the right to set those conditions. Money may or may not be one of the conditions imposed upon an individual act. Just because money was a condition yesterday it does not change a person’s right to say “no” today.
If the answer is no, then it’s rape.

Erick says:

01:56pm | 02/06/11

Well played, Bev!

The real deeply rooted sexism is that men being raped is considered a fit subject for humour, while the opposite is true for women being raped.

That’s just one of the examples of discrimination against men in our sexist society.

Conservatives Unite! (AdamC) says:

02:26pm | 02/06/11

I’m not sure that most people regard rape of either men or women as especially funny. Having said that, I think people are more likely to ‘blame the victim’ in cases of sexual assault against men.

AAAdam, I guess, in theory, those provisions would apply to prostitutes. I can’t see why they wouldn’t. However, I imagine most johns would be too embarrassed to complain!

progressivesunite says:

03:00pm | 02/06/11

@ “conservatives unite” - people are more likely to blame the victim of sexual assault if it’s a man? are you serious?

Erick says:

03:09pm | 02/06/11

I don’t regard rape as especially funny, nor do I regard murder or humiliation or physical harm as especielly funny.

But my point is that much humour, or even most of it, is based on bad things. Look at any popular comedy movie, and most of the jokes will involve someone being hurt, embarrassed, injured or harmed in some way. That’s just the way humour is.

Saying that one particular type of harm is exempt from humour is simply a kind of discrimination.

Conservatives Unite! (AdamC) says:

04:10pm | 02/06/11

Progressivesunite, of course I am serious. People are much more aware of the real causes and impacts of violence, especially sexual violence, against women than they are of violence towards men.

AAAdam says:

04:36pm | 02/06/11

@ Adam C - “However, I imagine most johns would be too embarrassed to complain!”

Hahaha. Sometimes I just think too logically and don’t consider the more intangible things. Of course no John/Jane would be game to ring the ACCC and complain his/her hooker was older, fatter, smellier and poorer quality than (s)he’d told him (yet they’d paid anyway and were now disappointed and wanted a refund). Lol.

progressivesunite says:

05:09pm | 02/06/11

@ Conservatives - yep, lucky society got over that whole “she was asking for it” attitude….

I seriously doubt that anyone would say a man deserved to be raped by another man! In the minority of cases where a man is raped by a woman, I’d acknowledge that a lot of people would dismiss that as serious, even though it is serious - still not sure about ‘blaming the victim’ though so much as not believing it’s possible (I’m not saying it’s not possible, before anyone screams at me…)

Bev says:

06:58pm | 02/06/11

progressivesunite says:05:09pm | 02/06/11

I seriously doubt that anyone would say a man deserved to be raped by another man! In the minority of cases where a man is raped by a woman, I’d acknowledge that a lot of people would dismiss that as serious, even though it is serious - still not sure about ‘blaming the victim’ though so much as not believing it’s possible (I’m not saying it’s not possible, before anyone screams at me…)

To further your education type -male rape victim blaming- into google. There is lots of information out there. In short studies show men (in general) are more profoundly affected by rape than most women because not only because their body space is invaded but their identity as a male is thrown into utter confusion.  There is a general feeling that he must be secretly gay and so he “wanted it” or that since he didn’t fend off his attacker he is a rather “weak” man.  When it comes to female on male rape (yes it does happen) well he’s a man so whats he complaining about isn’t that what men want.  Happy studying!

Fiona says:

08:40pm | 02/06/11

How did a post about prostitutes end up being about sexism (thanks erick et al) gender bashing (thanks fed up with women) and rape (thanks Peter) and rape AND sexism?
Bev and erick,  last I looked everyone agreed that rape for both genders is bad and wrong. I’d be interested to know why rape is thought to be more traumatic for men than women bev. I would’ve thought the event eQually traumatic for both genders.

Bev says:

11:18pm | 02/06/11

Fiona says:08:40pm | 02/06/11
I’d be interested to know why rape is thought to be more traumatic for men than women bev. I would’ve thought the event eQually traumatic for both genders.
According to studies now surfacing it has to do with a mans sense of sexual indentity and how men perceive themselves in society. Leading to in many cases a greater sense of loss of their identity as a man. The studies can express it better than I.

Talk to them? says:

10:18am | 02/06/11

You’re doing it wrong.

James of SA says:

01:50pm | 02/06/11

Talk to them? says:....

If you’ve seen what they look like, the only thing you’d wanna do is talk to them.

Gavin says:

12:06pm | 02/06/11

Ah yes, those poor dames of consenting age don’t know better. But us men do. They should be taken under the charitable male wing and allow themselves to be guided and guarded by a male superior. Silly girls….

stevem says:

01:13pm | 02/06/11

There are many university students paying their way through sex. Working one night a week will net them more than every night + weekends at McDonalds and leave them plenty of time for study and socialising. Is the brothel or McDonalds exploiting them more?
These women understand what they are doing and accept the pluses and minuses of their profession. Why should some pencil pushing bureaucrat decide upon the legality of the profession based on their own morality without considering those of the greater community?

SomeSexIslandsInThePacific says:

03:50pm | 02/06/11

Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii…

Seriously John, you need to smell the coffee. politicians should know better? Canberra has the most permissive porn/prostitution laws in Australia. Obviously they DO know better! If you don’t like it I’ve got a Delorean and can take you back to 1955.

Chris L says:

04:57pm | 02/06/11

John, in just what way is prostitution a corrosive element to either women or society? Is there some element of exchanging cash for sex that puts in in a different catagory from exchanging sex for favours or simply having sex for personal gratification?

What corrosive effect have you witnessed, or is there a study that demonstrates what you’re talking about?

fairsfair says:

11:49am | 02/06/11

Yes, fair point. I don’t know anyone who boasted at careers day “when I grow up I want to be prostitute”. However, given it is supposedly the oldest profession in the world and the demand for the services will never cease, we really should seek to protect the people involved for the very same reason.

Its illegality is based on morals. Sex is so over exposed and meaningless these days it is hardly the great horror it once was seen to be.

Lostie says:

12:06pm | 02/06/11

I would not go to work at all if I didn’t need the money, so unless you are suggesting that everyone is being taken advantage of I don’t know what you mean by that question.

Would I sell myself for sex, no. To me sex is special, but I certainly do not seek ti impost that same standard on every other person.

Tim says:

12:59pm | 02/06/11

fairsfair,
I don’t know anyone that boasted about being a sewerage worker at careers day either.
Phil,
we’re all prostitutes, just on different levels and for different prices.

stevem says:

01:15pm | 02/06/11

no, I wouldn’t prostitute yourself. Equally I didn’t decide to be an accountant or a lawyer or a builder.

baal says:

01:35pm | 02/06/11

I have gotten paid for sex and given it freely and paid for it. Not a big deal. It is other peoples attitudes to hooking that makes people feel demeaned and ashamed. You and people with negative attitudes are the problem and not happy honest whores like myself.
By the way I am one of those regular law abiding taxpayers you would not take a second look at.
So relax and I know a great way to relax

Phil says:

01:59pm | 02/06/11

@Lostie - “Would I sell myself for sex, no. To me sex is special, but I certainly do not seek ti impost that same standard on every other person.”

What is legal or not is entirely based upon what we think is “special”.  Sex IS special.  So let’s stop pretending it isn’t.  I’m no prude, but on the other hand it doesn’t take a Rocket Scientist to realise that the sex industry exploits people and we shouldn’t support it through legalisation.  C’mon.  Enough with the intellectual rationalisation.  If you think it’s special for you then you must believe it is special for everyone, including that 18 year homeless girl with the drug problem or the runaway gay boy who works the wall in Sydney.

fairsfair says:

03:09pm | 02/06/11

No Tim, but you can have dreams of being a hydrologist, an engineer or a council worker and end up there. It is a job at the end of a journey (pardon the pun) or on the road to something.

Prostitution is never thought of in that context so it does in a way support Phil’s suggestion that those who take that path in life are vulnerable for whatever reason.

lostie says:

03:42pm | 02/06/11

@Phil:

“If you think it’s special for you then you must believe it is special for everyone, including that 18 year homeless girl with the drug problem or the runaway gay boy who works the wall in Sydney.”

No I don’t. Just because I value something, doesn’t mean that everyone else does (or should) value it also. I know people who despite their familes and other who cherish them, I know people who love sport and who hate it. There is nothing “special” or “sacred” about sex outside of the value that any individual chooses to give it.

Personally, I think that my weekends are important so I refuse to sell them to my employer. There are consequences for that, but my weekends are more important than the money, prestige or reputation of that work or promotion.

Clearly, there are other people that do not share that view, nor should they be forced to.

I can name a handful of others fidelity (not cherished by all, else there would be no infidelity), respect for other rights (if this were shared there would be no violent crime), respect for the rule of law (see crime rates), education (see the number of people who attend school but refuse to be educated), the right to end ones own life (but alas, euthanasia is illegal),  I could go on…

Each individual must determine what is important to them.  have no right to tell you what should or shouldn’t be important to you. I dare say many of the things that I hold as most important would be waived off as insignificant to others. It is these different values that make us human and allow people to pursue different interests - If sex is as universally sacred as you claim, surely people would not wish to buy it they would seek only to have it given freely, with love. People would not share it with many, or give it away so readily.

Clearly, to each of these people, sex has a different value. Some see it as purely functionary, others as as a fun pass time, and yet others see it as a duty they owe their partner. There are even some that see it as a commodity.

There is no denying that this variety exists in society today, just as it’s value has varied significantly over the last 5000 years to free sex of the 60’s the conservative Victorian era, the liberal roman empire and the more controlling Egyptian values. The value is not fixed, it ebbs and flows - despite the desire of some to keep it stagnant, value will change.

this isn’t intellectualisation of , this is observation, understanding and acceptance. I ask you one question:

Why is sex special?

Baal says:

03:44pm | 02/06/11

@Phil. Many people believe like me that sex can be special with that special someone or sometimes just recreation and everything in between.
Also you are very arrogant to assume that sex with a prostitute is not special.
Ask a disabled person who only has the choice of using a hooker and ask them how special it is, they woiuld let you know it is very special to them.
Your use of the word special is obviously laden with your personal values which you seem to think should be imposed on all people.

Phil says:

04:14pm | 02/06/11

@Lostie - either sex is ‘special’ to the human race or it is not.  It’s not an individual consumer choice.  Either it is or it isn’t.  All this “I like to work weekends but that doesn’t mean other’s have to” kind of intellectualism is just BS.  We all know how important sex is to us so that’s why we are all not out their walking the streets!  I mean, really.  Would you like it if you found out your little sister or brother was hooking?  Honestly?  Of course you wouldn’t.  That’s my point.  Enough with this PC crap.  Prostitution - generally - is about the exploitation of people who are vulnerable in society by people who know full well they are taking advantage but don’t really care as all they want to do is get their rocks off.  The minute you make it personal they suddenly say “Oh, but I wouldn’t do it myself, or want anyone I know to do it, but that’s just a personal choice”.  Yeah, right.

Phil says:

04:14pm | 02/06/11

@Lostie - either sex is ‘special’ to the human race or it is not.  It’s not an individual consumer choice.  Either it is or it isn’t.  All this “I like to work weekends but that doesn’t mean other’s have to” kind of intellectualism is just BS.  We all know how important sex is to us so that’s why we are all not out their walking the streets!  I mean, really.  Would you like it if you found out your little sister or brother was hooking?  Honestly?  Of course you wouldn’t.  That’s my point.  Enough with this PC crap.  Prostitution - generally - is about the exploitation of people who are vulnerable in society by people who know full well they are taking advantage but don’t really care as all they want to do is get their rocks off.  The minute you make it personal they suddenly say “Oh, but I wouldn’t do it myself, or want anyone I know to do it, but that’s just a personal choice”.  Yeah, right.

Phil says:

04:38pm | 02/06/11

@baal - the word “special” was only used because that is what Lostie said in her reply.  I agree that it’s a bit off the mark because it gives it some sort of “holiness” connotation, which is not what am trying to say. 

Look, as i said, i’m no prude - honestly! - I am perfectly happy for consenting adults to do whatever they like with whomever they like for as many times as they like!  Actually, I think that’s great.

But as soon as you introduce the sale of sex into the picture you create problems.  Now, you are maybe one of the lucky ones - good on you - but for every one of your there are probably many, many more who have been hurt, damaged or exploited by the sex industry and, I ask you: for what?  So that we might get our rocks off more cheaply and easily?

Lostie says:

04:40pm | 02/06/11

@Phil “Would you like it if you found out your little sister or brother was hooking?”

I wouldn’t care in the slightest, just as I wouldn’t care if any of my friends chose to visit a hooker. Why would I care about such things?

You still haven’t explained why it MUST be important to everyone?

Phil says:

05:18pm | 02/06/11

@Lostie - “You still haven’t explained why it MUST be important to everyone?”

It’s not a question of “must”, it just is.  You know it - you’ve already agreed that it is!  Better to recognise that and deal with it properly than pretend it isn’t, like it’s some kind of commodity, like chocolate milk, to be bought or sold as we like.  Sex is a big, big part of who we are as human beings, as a society, and how we define ourselves, personally.  Perhaps most importantly, it is a very big part of our growing up and whether we become happy, healthy, well-balanced little human beings.

My girlfriend was sexually abused over a period of time by her step-father when she was 9.  For ever after she has had many problems in coming to terms with this.  It has seriously FHU.  Now, you might say “oh, well that’s different - that’s sex with a minor”.  But, really, how is it so different?  It’s sjust omeone taking advantage of another person for sex.  A minor is vulnerable and so are many, many of the people who end up hooking.  Drug issues, homelessness, past sexual abuse, intimidation, etc.  It’s all there.  Go learn about it and I bet you’ll change your mind.

See ya.

Perskaysa01 says:

06:41am | 03/06/11

@Baal: “Also you are very arrogant to assume that sex with a prostitute is not special.”
Sex with a prostitute is special???!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!  Thanks for that; it made my day! :D

@Phil:  Finally, a voice of reason around here! People have gone off their heads!  Common sense says sex SHOULD be special, but most men (and even worse—the women in the “we-can’t-beat-them-so-we’ll-join-them” group) don’t want what they consider to be a “right” to be infringed upon. I’m sick of the political correctness crap that thinks no limits on people’s actions is what will make the world a better place…you either have to believe some limits are appropriate, or you have to believe everyone can make up their ownp—in which case, things such as sex with minors would have to be legal! The problem is, no one wants their fun spoilt…selfish, the lot of them!

Why can’t all the sl*ts and their customers make their way to their own continent and do whatever it is they want to do, so the rest of us can live healthy sex-full lives at home and not have to look at everyone else rooting on billboards, tv, and all other manner of media? Like we want to see it! Geez, people are so narcissistic! 

And stop calling sl*ts ladies! They are not!

Lostie says:

09:48am | 03/06/11

“It’s not a question of “must”, it just is. “

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is what we in the world of logic and reason call an unsupported premise. That does not mean that it is untrue, just that there is no evidence posed to support the hypothesis.

Accepting it because one claims that it is true is bestowing on the speaker a degree of trust that is unjustified and unlimited. It is accepted simply because it is stated as fact.

“you’ve already agreed that it is!” Is what we call a lie. I have said nothing of the sort. I have said that it is important to me, not that it is important to everyone. I have actually provided statements that demonstrate that this argument is fallacious.

“Now, you might say “oh, well that’s different - that’s sex with a minor”.  But, really, how is it so different? “

Now this fact scenario has a few flaws, firstly it is anecdotal, secondly it is a straw man and finally it is a red herring. The first is self explanatory, but the later 2 require further examination:

No one talked about a change in the age of consent to sexual behaviour - your suggestion that if it affects a 9 year old it must affect everyone is a straw man and unsupported.

No one talked about changes to a special duty of care owed by a person to minors under this control and protection. This is a red herring, it distract from the question:

Is sex special, universally.

Against I answer in the negative, if it were no one would want to just buy it, no one would want to take it from force, no one would ever withhold it from someone that they cared about and so on. Soulding special would not be used in such a way. A commodity would be. The fact that we are even having this discussion, combined with a look at the change in sexual relationship over the millennia,  suggests that not everyone shares our view that sex is special.

The significance and importance of sex, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I do not seek to impose my values on others - I do not demand that others behave the way that I expect to live my own life. If I did adultery, pre-marital sex, sex with a second or subsequent person during the course of one’s life, intoxication, homosexuality, drug use (I could go on) would be prohibited under threat of punishment by the state.

Everyone has different values, the purpose of the law, in my opinion, should not be to demand compliance with the moral sensibilities of the masses, but to protect people from harm at the hands of another.

As for exposure and experience, I grew up in Sydney’s South West - I know people who have paid for and have been paid for sex, I know people who have been sexually assaulted and I know one person who has done time for sexual assault I even know people who have sex in loving relationships and one person who attempted to commit suicide because they weren’t getting any.

The funny thing is they all have different views on sex, what it means and just how important it is….

Saying “it just is” doesn’t make sex important to everyone, it simply demonstrates a willingness to blindly (and unjustifiably) assume that everyone shares your world view.

Fiona says:

08:55pm | 02/06/11

Agreed Bruno, it is a tough question and no prostitutes don’t deserve to be marginalized. Making it safer, maybe. However, seeing the morer unpleasant side of life (ie, the customers and their various fetishes) probably leads to a high turnover anyway.

Erick says:

03:11pm | 02/06/11

Obviously, Kassandra, you have no idea of reality in 21st Century Australia, whatsoever.

Eva says:

03:54pm | 02/06/11

Sorry Cassandra but I think you will find that there are plenty of women like myself who do it because we are good at it and enjoy providing a valuable service. You may not know about us as it is not a job I discuss with anyone but my clients and my closest friends. I am sure all the other women who voluntarily choose this job have a similar attitude to keeping quiet when asked what they do for a job.

Eva says:

03:55pm | 02/06/11

Sorry Cassandra but I think you will find that there are plenty of women like myself who do it because we are good at it and enjoy providing a valuable service. You may not know about us as it is not a job I discuss with anyone but my clients and my closest friends. I am sure all the other women who voluntarily choose this job have a similar attitude to keeping quiet when asked what they do for a job.

independent sex worker says:

10:39am | 03/06/11

Sorry Kassandra but I have been a sex worker for over 17 years. I paid my way through a BA (Psych) and a Grad Dip in Sexual Health. I have a house in Sydney which I nearly own outright and an investment property in another state. I have many sex workers friends who have similar life experiences. I have a good work ethic and have been working since I was 14 years old (first job was at a bakery on Saturday mornings). I do not have a drug habit but even if i did - it’s none of your business. I know many people who have used drugs including doctors, nurses, accountants, lawyers, graphic designers, architects, garbage collectors and builders. They all have their Industrial Rights and their Human Rights respected at work and so should us sex workers. 

Please stop talking about issues and industries you know nothing about. Most people do not even know they live near a brothel… and in NSW they are categorised as “authorised” and unauthorised” premises. It is NOT ILLEGAL to own and operate a brothel in NSW. As for me - I’ve worked from home for over 10 years now and I have always had at least 2 neighbours who know what I do and are quite fine about it. As it happens behind closed doors how are they to differentiate between my brother, my boyfriend, a series of tradesmen coming to give me a quote on something, male friends or a client coming to visit??? From the street it all looks the same: a person walking to my front door, knocking and being let it and saying hello.

Oh - and I am completely authorised to work from my home and I have that right without having to inform anyone, not even council. Decriminalisation is the only way to support the health and safety of sex workers, our clients and therefore everyone (as we are all members of society). It is the only way to eliminate corruption and stand over tactics and separate the police from the equation so they can go back to proper policing - not being the regulators of archaic laws.

independent sex worker says:

10:39am | 03/06/11

Sorry Kassandra but I have been a sex worker for over 17 years. I paid my way through a BA (Psych) and a Grad Dip in Sexual Health. I have a house in Sydney which I nearly own outright and an investment property in another state. I have many sex workers friends who have similar life experiences. I have a good work ethic and have been working since I was 14 years old (first job was at a bakery on Saturday mornings). I do not have a drug habit but even if i did - it’s none of your business. I know many people who have used drugs including doctors, nurses, accountants, lawyers, graphic designers, architects, garbage collectors and builders. They all have their Industrial Rights and their Human Rights respected at work and so should us sex workers. 

Please stop talking about issues and industries you know nothing about. Most people do not even know they live near a brothel… and in NSW they are categorised as “authorised” and unauthorised” premises. It is NOT ILLEGAL to own and operate a brothel in NSW. As for me - I’ve worked from home for over 10 years now and I have always had at least 2 neighbours who know what I do and are quite fine about it. As it happens behind closed doors how are they to differentiate between my brother, my boyfriend, a series of tradesmen coming to give me a quote on something, male friends or a client coming to visit??? From the street it all looks the same: a person walking to my front door, knocking and being let it and saying hello.

Oh - and I am completely authorised to work from my home and I have that right without having to inform anyone, not even council. Decriminalisation is the only way to support the health and safety of sex workers, our clients and therefore everyone (as we are all members of society). It is the only way to eliminate corruption and stand over tactics and separate the police from the equation so they can go back to proper policing - not being the regulators of archaic laws.

DaveinPerth says:

01:24pm | 04/06/11

If memory serves, Prince Phillip also expressed the same sentiments in a speech. I presume in his case, he wasn’t claiming to be the ‘customer’.