The U.K. government's proposal is to make it illegal to pay for sex with a woman/man who is "controlled for another person's gain."
But not to outlaw paying for sex altogether. Yet it will not be enough for a woman/man who is accused of this offence to say that s/he didn't know the woman/man was being "controlled for another's gain."
Yet how is the woman/man supposed to know?
This is close to the effective banning of paying for sex (without banning it) and that is the expressed intention. Abusurdity!
If you are not outlawing paying for sex then legalise and regulate it so that the woman/man can be sure that the woman/man is not being coerced.
As the proposal stands women/men could end up taking the risk of doing something that might possibly be illegal, but which might not be illegal. It's not going to work this way! It's Loonytunes!
....
------
Legalizing Prostitution: A Step Towards Freedom.
http://www.szasz.com/undergraduate/Smith.html
----
Last week during a debate on paying for sex, Germaine Greer announced that selling it was better than "selling a child, a kidney or your soul for long hours for wretched pay stacking shelves at Tesco".
----
Prostitutes provide a service.
Not necessarily an indispensable one but a service none the less.
In some cases it is providing a service for people who have no other access to sexual activity.
......
----
'Is this something about which people have a choice with respect to their demands? Yes, they do. Basically, if it means fewer people are able to go out and pay for sex I think that would be a good thing.'
Jacqui Smith.
Of course, matron.
What right does Jacqui Smith have to say this?
She is basically saying "I want people to have less sex!".
Effectively for some people she is saying "I want you to have no sex at all!"
Wasn't there something in a little book called "1984" about the Anti-Sex League....?
...
Obviously I am against exploitation, trafficking and slavery of any kind.
Surely a good strategy to combat this would be legalization.
This would be as good as any strategy.
But not to outlaw paying for sex altogether. Yet it will not be enough for a woman/man who is accused of this offence to say that s/he didn't know the woman/man was being "controlled for another's gain."
Yet how is the woman/man supposed to know?
This is close to the effective banning of paying for sex (without banning it) and that is the expressed intention. Abusurdity!
If you are not outlawing paying for sex then legalise and regulate it so that the woman/man can be sure that the woman/man is not being coerced.
As the proposal stands women/men could end up taking the risk of doing something that might possibly be illegal, but which might not be illegal. It's not going to work this way! It's Loonytunes!
....
------
Legalizing Prostitution: A Step Towards Freedom.
http://www.szasz.com/undergraduate/Smith.html
----
Last week during a debate on paying for sex, Germaine Greer announced that selling it was better than "selling a child, a kidney or your soul for long hours for wretched pay stacking shelves at Tesco".
----
Prostitutes provide a service.
Not necessarily an indispensable one but a service none the less.
In some cases it is providing a service for people who have no other access to sexual activity.
......
----
'Is this something about which people have a choice with respect to their demands? Yes, they do. Basically, if it means fewer people are able to go out and pay for sex I think that would be a good thing.'
Jacqui Smith.
Of course, matron.
What right does Jacqui Smith have to say this?
She is basically saying "I want people to have less sex!".
Effectively for some people she is saying "I want you to have no sex at all!"
Wasn't there something in a little book called "1984" about the Anti-Sex League....?
...
Obviously I am against exploitation, trafficking and slavery of any kind.
Surely a good strategy to combat this would be legalization.
This would be as good as any strategy.