A supporter of the rights of sex workers delivers a critique of the prostitution abolitionist viewpoint (the sexual trade union viewpoint) :
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/03/how-prostitution-abolitionists-substitute-ideologies-facts
(excerpt) :
In their Factum to the appeal court, the intervenors are very fond of repeating certain phrases and ideas as if they are the gospel truth when they are nothing more than unsupported ideology. Numerous examples of ideological assertions masquerading as facts appear in their Factum — even some in their “Statement of Facts” section (Part II, pages 4-9). For example, Fact #8 reads:
The sexual exploitation, coercion, and violence that define prostitution are practices committed overwhelmingly by men against their social and economic subordinates, women and children. (p. 4)
The view that prostitution is “defined” by exploitation, coercion, and violence is purely subjective, and was soundly repudiated in the Himel case by a wide range of testimony from sex workers, academic experts, and police. The court found that the laws against prostitution prevented workers from taking certain safety measures, which means that the laws contribute to making it unsafe. Even so, most sex work is still conducted consensually, safely, and civilly. Therefore, violence, coercion, and exploitation are not intrinsic properties of prostitution — they occur under certain conditions that can be improved or fixed, such as by working indoors with others, taking the time to screen clients, or hiring a driver.
A sexual trade unionist responds in the comments section with this diatrabe :
What is a ‘prostitution abolitionist’ and who describes themselves thus?
Prostitution is not going to end. The selling of sex is never going to stop. But let’s not equate working as a cashier with selling time to men during which they insert their penis into women’s bodies. Let’s not ever make the laws such that some women who cannot get other kinds of work will be encouraged, legally, or perseuaded, or forced into prostitution.
This topic – and the efforts of women to decriminalize it, cannot be rationalized. The world is a not a rational place but is filled with contradictions, especially where sex is concerned. Unfortunately, or should that be fortunately, prostitution has to stay exactly where it is. If anyone wants to introduce more health benefits, fine. But don’t make this act of male penetration (and whatever else) into what might be an unwilling participant, legal.
What she appears to be saying is that she cannot understand why the author of the article (I assume a woman) is going against the collective interest of her gender by supporting prostitution. Perhaps she is not middle-aged and ugly (see photo of commentator ‘Sue McPherson’ below)? The world might not be a rational place, but it doesn’t help when feminists fill it with ideological lies and crap, all thinly disguised rationalisations of the primal needs of their aging vaginas in a free sexual market.

Sue McPherson






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