Recent British television debate on John Mann’s bill to make it illegal to pay for sex with any person aged under 21 :
Sexual Trade Union groups in Ireland appear to be having success in lobbying their government to tighten laws on prostitution – and to ‘close the loophole’ that allows men to legally pay for sex :
Members of a group lobbying for the laws on prostitution to be tightened continued their campaign today by meeting Independent TDs at Leinster House.
The discussions took place ahead of tonight’s RTÉ’s Prime Time programme on the issue.
The ”Turn off the Red Light” campaign is made up of 48 communities, professional organisations, unions and voluntary groups.
It says the law should be tightened to support women trapped in a life of abuse in the sex industry.
Chief Executive of the Immigrant Council of Ireland Denise Charlton said many people will be surprised that a loophole in Irish law means it is legal to pay for sex.
She said the campaign is calling on the Government to introduce legislation that makes it a criminal offence.
Meanwhile, W.F.Price has posted a couple of articles on prostitution at The-Spearhead.com that you should check out, if you haven’t already done so :
Spotted on Reddit – the best reply ever to the misguided Men’s Rights supporters who insist that teenage boys are intrinsically abused or damaged by willing sexual encounters with older women (the context is the American woman jailed last week for 30 years for having sex with a 13 year old boy) :
Now, I need to make clear again that the double standard in sentencing, that this particular ruling is an exception that proves the rule, is indeed a disgrace, and rightly a highly prominant men’s rights issue. But let’s never forget that ‘statutory rape’ laws were created by the same self-interested feminists who would stick white feathers into the letterboxes of conscientous objectors and coal miners during the slaughter of WWI, and who cried with indignity at the suggestion that men were doing anything but simply their chivalric duty in allowing women to take the lifeboats, even before children, on board the sinking Titanic.
Equal injustice is no justice. I have little sympathy with this woman jailed for 30 years – her tears of self-pity will certainly be drowned out by the screams of the many more numerous male ‘sexual predators’ being raped up their anal passages, or being beaten to a pulp in their cells. Unlike a man, rape won’t be an acknowledged, if unofficial part of her sentence. She won’t have to spend every day of the next 30 years in constant fear of being beaten or murdered by other prisoners. And prison warders will likely give her sympathy rather than spit in her food as they bring it to her cell.
I have little sympathy for this woman, but these ridiculous sentences for statutory ‘rape’- feminist laws ‘supported’ by feminist cod science (and a large dose of American puritanism), are still a crime against humanity whether it is women or men who suffer from them. Unfortunately, women are unlikely to stop supporting these laws until women are made to suffer from them just as much as men (although I doubt even this will ever be enough – women, especially feminists, seem impervious to the suffering of other women, so long as their own sexual interests are furthered or maintained. Furthermore, these feminist laws, especially as they increasingly become extended to cover young adult women (see below), will always target men and the male love of youth, beauty, and fertility, than they ever will target the average woman).
Which brings me to some further disturbing thoughts I’ve had on the bill proposing to outlaw paying for sex with 18- 21 year olds in the UK. This will likely not just cover paying for prostitutes, but also for things like webcam services, adult dating services, and even paying for a membership to a porn site that uses 18-20 year old models (in other words virtually all porn sites – even MILF/Cougar sites often have 20 year old male actors and regularly have scenarios where the MILF seduces a much younger male and/or female). In fact, it will mean that the minimum age for pornography will be 21 in the UK if the bill is passed. The proposed bill makes pointed reference to ‘paying for sex and all related services‘.
This will be a further example of how these crazy laws are indeed crimes against humanity in a borderless online world, as they increasingly veer from the respective laws on these matters in America (protected to some extent as it is by a constitution that guarantees free speech and expression), and which is the home of the global entertainment industry – including porn. As it is, a European or Australian breaks ridiculous child porn laws every time he watches a YouTube video of a sexy girl dancing, or even a jailbait Miley Cyrus MTV video – all quite legal in the US. Soon, lucky Brits might find they could be at risk of prosecution if they don’t unsubscribe to any American (or indeed European) adult related websites that feature persons under the age of 21. Can the last man to leave the UK please remember to turn the lights out (and leave the toilet seats up)?
The government has insisted it is a “coincidence” that it bought a lot more tickets for Olympic beach volleyball than it did for the athletics.
Former Labour sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe asked if it was just an “oddity” that 410 volleyball tickets were bought at a cost of £26,000.
Civil servant Jonathan Stephens said tickets for staff were largely for weekend events and cost up to £90 each.
The event which met those requirements “turns out to be volleyball”, he said
Leave the poor f*****s alone. It must be hard work passing law after law criminalising male sexuality in order to win the vagina vote necessary to remain in office. Even political manginas need to have a good honest perv now and again.
Sounds like these government ministers might benefit from the following anti-feminist tip of the week :
How to Take Photos of Sexy Girls on the Beach
Britain’s NuLabour party may no longer be in government, but its members are still seeking to further criminalize male sexuality, even from the opposition benches. John Mann, the Labour M.P. for Bassetlaw, has introduced a bill for an amendment to the 2003 Sexual Offences Act which would criminalize men who pay for sex with young adults between the ages of 18 and 20.
“I beg to move: That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to create an offence of paying for sexual services of a person under the age of 21 years; and for connected purposes….
…There is an important debate to be held on the rights and wrongs of prostitution and the laws that should have an impact on it, by my Bill does not deal with that. My Bill does one thing: it raises the threshold for the illegality of paying for sex. Of course there is a threshold, which is currently 16. Where someone is under 16, the huge consequences of the criminal law and imprisonment are involved because of the age of consent. But the moment the victim becomes older than 16 there are no punitive powers to deal with the person who is paying. I wish to see this Bill adopted by the Government at some stage solely and simply to raise that threshold, because by raising the threshold one raises the threshold. That may sound like a truism, but this approach will change the behaviour of those choosing to pay. The behavioural implication is there for those worried about breaching the criminal law and risking 14 years in prison because someone could be a minor of 15 and a half years old. On that borderline, threshold behaviour changes, so I would like Parliament to change that threshold to 21. In essence, that will take all the teenage years out of the real threshold and will change the behaviour of people who are paying. I am not making moral judgments about what people do as adults.
My Bill seeks solely and simply to raise that threshold. I think that raising the threshold will have a huge impact because the age group involved—older teenagers—must be given the space in which to turn around their lives. Our current legislative framework makes them the victims as, in reality, the powers available to the police, even though they are often wisely and deliberately not used, are to arrest and criminalise young people, which worsens their life chances and their chances of turning around the situation.
Notice the part of his speech that I have highlighted in bold – at first it reads rather like gibberish, but he appears to be saying exactly what I’ve always stated here as the true motivation behind higher and higher age of consent laws. The threshold must be raised to 21 so that men won’t even go near anyone who even could be under 21. I’ll quote him again :
The behavioural implication is there for those worried about breaching the criminal law and risking 14 years in prison because someone could be a minor of 15 and a half years old. On that borderline, threshold behaviour changes, so I would like Parliament to change that threshold to 21.
In other words, we are now entering the world in which I have always predicted that feminists and their mangina puppets would be leading us into – where men are beginning to face legal risks (from ‘child protection’ laws) for even seeking out adult women in their early twenties.
And given that most females in the UK complete puberty by the age of 16, how exactly can you distinguish between a 20 year old adult woman and a 21 year old adult woman? Obviously, the only sure way would be to only seek prostitutes who have obvious signs of aging – women in their late twenties or thirties.
This bill, if it becomes law, will have numerous consequences. A line will have been crossed in the sexual demarcation between ‘children’ and adults (already ridiculously defined by feminists at 18). Even young adult women over 18 can now fall under the ‘protection’ of anti-paedophile and child abuse laws. Just as the raising of the minimum age for prostitution and pornography to 18 has made having sex with 17 year old girls morally and socially dubious, even though the age of consent is still 16 in the UK and most other countries (or lower), soon simply having sex with 20 year old women will carry connotations of paedophilia and child abuse.
Note also that it will become legally hazardous to buy a 20 year old woman a meal before having sex, or even buying a young woman a drink in a nightclub, lest you be accused of ‘paying for sex’.
And this, of course, is the real intention. This is better for the average woman than the complete criminilization of paying for sex would be. With this law, with this discrimination between women under and over 21, the sexual market price of the older woman is again raised.
Thanks to Human-Stupidity for notifying me of this bill – I can only find it on two sites online – the link given above, and Adult World News, which appears to be related to the excellent Melon Farmers anti-censorship/sex positive (male and female) news website. But I can’t find it on any mainstream media site.
This is how politics works in the UK, especially the never ending barrage of anti-male sexuality legislation. A bill is introduced into parliament, the House of Commons and then the House of Lords debate it, and shortly after, the new law is announced on page 9 of the Daily Telegraph. There is no public debate – 99% of the public probably won’t be aware of it even when it has become law. And of course, in the present climate it is almost impossible to repeal sex laws (apart, of course, from those relating to homosexuality and trans-genders).
The NYPD gleefully reported that the transactional value of the average female voter’s vagina in New York had risen slightly due to their heroic efforts in trapping Johns recently. The hard working pigs, posing as prostitutes, managed to successfully solicit and wreck the lives of 186 lonely men in just 4 days.
BUENOS AIRES, Feb 25, 2011 (IPS) – An Argentine government proposal to crack down on clients benefiting from the trafficking of persons for the purposes of sexual exploitation has unleashed a heated debate between feminist organisations that support the idea and sex workers who are opposed to it.
The proposal by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights has the support of organisations whose aim is to abolish the commercial sex trade. These groups want prostitution to be condemned as a form of exploitation, and are calling for measures like the promotion of alternative sources of employment.
The concept of going after the client has received the backing of the United Nations and the Organisation of American States (OAS), which will study it to recommend its inclusion in the national laws of each country…
…Trafficking in persons is “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion…for the purpose of exploitation,” according to the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, which has been signed and ratified by Argentina.
“Prostitution is not decent work, because people are subjected to humiliation, and they never know what to expect in each transaction,” Altschul said. “And in the case of trafficking, it is obvious that sexual exploitation is involved.”
Many women’s rights groups thus believe that not only the clients of trafficking victims should be penalised, but anyone who pays for sex.
But the Association of Women Prostitutes of Argentina (AMMAR), which has more than 4,000 members, is opposed to the proposal and has promised to make its voice heard at the next OAS General Assembly, to be held in June in El Salvador.
“This confuses trafficking, which we condemn, with sex work, which is an option followed by some women, as consenting adults,” Elena Reynaga, president of AMMAR, told IPS.
She also complained that the “abolitionist” groups have not listened to their concerns. “They don’t respect us, they don’t listen to us,” Altschul said. “Bans only hurt us and expose us more than we already are.”
And why do feminists not respect the wishes of the sex workers they are supposedly trying to protect? Because it’s all a sham. Because feminists regard sex workers as cockroaches. It simply serves their purposes to portray prostitutes as victims, and themselves as guardian angels. The rape of the male would not be possible otherwise.
In better news, and demonstrating that South America isn’t yet completely lost to the femi-beasts, Human-Stupidity reports that Brazil has become the first country to outlaw parental alienation.
A Swedish report last week declared their government’s prostitution law, which criminilizes men who pay for sex, to have been a great success. I haven’t started to put the report through Google translation so I’m not yet in a position to properly critique it (at least Swedish femi-nazi ‘research’ appears to be published online – unlike British and American Government sponsored trash). Judging from the link she provides in her Guardian article, I doubt if the British sexual trade unionist Julie Bindel has read it in translation either. But there’s no doubting the fact that she is delighted enough with the study’s reported findings, delighted enough to predict that they will be enough to force a similar law to be passed in the UK.
Miss Julie certainly has read the countless British academic studies and papers that have already been published criticising the Swedish law – she’s only too happy to mention them, sure in the knowledge that the conclusions of an ‘independent commission’ are enough to negate each and every one of them. Except that the ‘independent’ commission was, ahem, appointed by the Swedish government and its femi-nazi justice minister Beatrice Ask (54) – the same minister who recently caused outrage even in feminist Sweden for calling on wives and daughters to name and shame fathers merely suspected of paying for sex with prostitutes.
By what criteria has the Swedish law been a success? Julie Brindle’s article hasn’t got much to say about any possible reduction in alleged human trafficking in Sweden (probably because such trafficking was minute in the first place), but she does gloat that it has halved the number of men paying for sex with street hookers. In other words, the law has been a success because Swedish men seem to understand that if they seek cheap anonymous paid for sex over a committed and faithful relationship with a woman as ugly as the average feminist, they face being beaten and raped in the local sex offender unit.
Exclusive rights to your penis and a lifetime of nagging that ends up costing you half your entire income as well as your kids when she finally dumps you for black cock
London Escort – £200 & NSA for the greatest hour of your life
Lionel Tiger, the man behind the recent male studies conference and author of ‘The Decline of Males’, takes part in a debate on whether or not feminists should be allowed to criminilize men who pay for sex.
A real voice for men.