Interview with Swedish sex worker on the evil of the feminist criminalization of her clients
Interview with Pye Jacobsson – a Swedish sex worker, on the criminalization of clients of sex workers in her country. I think it’s been re-uploaded from a few years back but I hadn’t seen it before (saw it today at reddit) :
Several points I picked up from it :
- Feminists imposed the law criminalizing the paying for sex against the wishes of sex workers
- The new law puts sex workers in danger and increases sex trafficking because it attracts more dodgy clients to seek independent and/or indoor sex workers (rather than street hookers) and because clients are no longer going to contact police if they feel a sex worker has been trafficked or is being abused (for fear of arrest)
- Even the United Nations asked Sweden to evaluate the new law
- The law is ‘gender neutral’. This means that the thousands of Swedish women who flock to the Carribean to exploit ‘rent-a-rastas’ can be hunted down and prosecuted (my observation)
Oh really? Maybe they CAN be hunted down and prosecuted, but clearly they are not and I’m sure they never will be.
(You are being ironic of course)?
Alan Vaughn
19 Sep 12 at 8:26 pm
Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this today:
http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/31/sweden-why-we-criminalized-purchase-of-sexual-services/
More BS from the feminazi Swedish government.
Also interesting to note that feminazism has apparently hijacked mass media icons like CNN, and that CNN appears to more than readily lump prostitution together with “modern-day slavery”.
inclinedreader
19 Sep 12 at 10:24 pm
Alan:
But no doubt the bitter femihag enforcers will spend millions of tax dollars travelling to the Carribean themselves to do ‘research’. They’ll no doubt also rent a few rastas themselves—all undercover work just to prove how easy it is, of course.
Eric
20 Sep 12 at 4:54 am
Unfortunately in most cases sex workers will only complain about the criminalisation of women, not about the criminilisation of men. When interviewed, a typical sex worker will say she’s only prostituting because she has to (she wouldn’t if she had a CEO job, you see). As such she is only a victim and the police should go after the men, who are the real bastards. She’s comfortable with the individuals that bring her money and affluence being criminalised. In fact I’m not convinced criminilising men is always a bad thing for prostitutes. For the most crooked prostitutes it isn’t. It opens new avenues in terms of blackmail and victimhood. Men have nothing to expect from any women in terms of men’s rights.
jack
20 Sep 12 at 6:52 am
Eric, yeah and when they return home after their field-research trip to the Caribbean, they’ll probably use more millions of the tax-payer dollars to fund advertisements for group tours of Swedish Cougars to the Caribbean, for a nice 2 week vacation. Also, for the one all inclusive ‘package’: 3 or 4 Rent-a-Rastas would be included in each heavily discounted fare, for each member of a group of 30 or more fugly and jealous Cougars…
Seriously though: I can still quite clearly remember up until about 30 years ago they had ads just like I described but for groups of men to the Philippines (namely Manila’s Angeles City) and to Bangkok!
I also recall not long afterwards, when the femihags got wind of what (the not so blatantly obvious) ads were actually promoting and needless to say, they were demanding that the ads be withdrawn immediately!
Soon after that of course, they were announcing all the new ‘child-sex tourism’ laws and the Draconian penalties involved etc…
Alan Vaughn
20 Sep 12 at 6:57 am
Thanks IR and sorry for your comment being put in the spam folder yet again.
I’ve been reading some more material on the suffragettes (as today’s post indicates). The age of consent in the UK was raised from 13 to 16 as a result of a very similar moral panic over prostitution engineered by the early suffragettes, and which also turned out to be largely bogus – the white slavery/child prostitute panic that provoked the first paedohysteria riot in history.
Despite what a lot of father’s rights activists wish to believe, feminists haven’t changed in over 100 years. In fact, if anything, they are closer to their roots now than ever before!
http://www.keele.ac.uk/history/currentundergraduates/tltp/SUFFRAGE/DOCUMENT/MALEVICA.HTM
theantifeminist
20 Sep 12 at 7:40 am
If the MRM does eventually evolve into something more than just angry blogging, then that should be a priority. Maybe we can’t force the Swedish government to prosecute them, but we could expose them – for example through sting advertisements offering rent-a-rasta tours (anyone speak Swedish?)
As to those who might say live and let live and that a sexually liberated MRM shouldn’t be chasing sexual libertarian women – I would refer you to Jack’s comment. Men cannot expect anything from women as regards our sexual rights. Women only speak up when it is in their own interests to do so and then invariably frame the argument as being pro-women (example the criminalization of clients of sex workers). I’m afraid that sexually free women have to understand that double standards will be exposed and that sexual freedom is for everybody or for nobody.
theantifeminist
20 Sep 12 at 7:47 am
Regarding slavery, I remember once looking up a foundation course in “Social Science” offered by a UK university. One of the units of the course was about “Slavery”. I thought there they go again, reviving African grievances and exorcising guilt in ex-colonial powers. But it was much worse than that: slavery was redifined as “modern slavery”, ie prostitution, entirely written from the feminist prohibitionist angle. At least the slave trade with Africa or slavery in the Ancient World had some reality in History. This was just dribble. And students are expected to take out a student’s loan to learn such dribble.
jack
20 Sep 12 at 9:31 am
Jack:
Yeah, that’s the whole trend in so-called ‘postmodernist’ academia. It’s difficult to summarize it neatly, but the idea goes something along these lines: According to these academics, the prehistoric ages were something like a harmonious ‘Golden Age’ where everyone worshipped the Earth Goddess and lived in happy, matriarchial communities. Then, along came a bunch of barbaric males who overthrew the whole system, enslaved and exploited everybody else and imposed on the world an artificial patriarchal construct called ‘civilization’.
Now, according to the postmodernists, the whole history of civilization has been a struggle between oppressed vs. oppressor, until sometime around the 1950s and 1960s when the mentors and teachers of our present academics suddenly began—presumably through their superior intellect and states of enlightment—to question civilization and thus, we’ve all embarked on a ‘new age’ where civilization is evolving to the promises of the earlier Golden Age.
Naturally, modern academics are (in their own minds) the only ones qualified to lead such a transition. Although all of them seem to miss the obvious contradiction between the Social Darwinism and Marxist Utopianism that they base all these theories upon, and the return to prehistoric barbarism they all aspire to as the final goal.
But it’s easy to see how radical feminism in all its aspects fits well into their paradigm. It’s nearly impossible to work or be published by any major Anglosphere university without being a feminist or a postmodernist.
Eric
20 Sep 12 at 8:23 pm