Yes it is Julie, yes it is

This is no moralistic anti-sex law. The aim is to create a society in which commercialised, one-sided sexual gratification has no place, because women are no longer deemed saleable objects.

The only reason you want women to not be saleable objects is your morality.

In theory that could be a good moral stance, could be a bad one, but it is absolutely simply a moral stance.

26 thoughts on “Yes it is Julie, yes it is”

  1. Bloke in Cornwall

    What about male escorts? She states that “because women are no longer deemed saleable objects” – does that mean men are still “saleable objects”? seems she may be being sexist here…

  2. Women renting brief access to their lower reproductive tracts doesn’t make women “saleable objects”.

  3. Now, the fundamental point of the headline (which may not have been written by Julie) is correct albeit utterly trivial.

    Decriminalisation (or anything else, frankly) won’t _protect_ sex workers from abuse. It will help them to get law enforcement involved if they are abused, which should provide some degree of incentive to potential abusers not to do so. But “protection”? Nah.

  4. Of course you’ve never had to stoop to buying it have you DBC?

    Virile People’s Hero of Socialism and holder of the Order of Longone that you are.

    More like the kind of prat that buys her a Magnet kitchen on the promise that you’ll get some on your birthday–maybe.

  5. Tim W’s favourite subject

    We’re often rather rude about Ritchie on here, but this is the first time I’ve heard it suggested that he is an actual rather than an intellectual (for whatever consideration you give him for intelligence) prostitute.

  6. Julie, like others on her side, fundamentally defines herself by what her enemies are not. Being ‘moral’, making moral judgements, is what she sees her Christian, conservative opponents doing. It’s unthinkable to her that she may share any characteristics with them at all, so her instinctive reaction is to deny any moral judgement on her part, even though when it comes to making moral pronouncements she is firmly “in the one percent”.

  7. I find it slightly ironic that if I want to rent out the use of my muscles or my brain (or almost any other part of my body), I’m encouraged to do so (even if the government then takes a large part of what I earn), but for some reason a different rule has to apply to the parts that have to do with reproduction (even when reproduction is absolutely not the aim).

  8. SJW: You’re right, it isn’t difficult to understand. And EL’s also right that you offer a distinction without a difference.

    Bindel claims that this is not a law based on a moralistic objection to people having sex, when (as our host correctly notes) it is exactly that.

    Bindel and co. always pretend that their (lip-pursingly puritanical) moral preferences are not moral preferences, but the rest of us aren’t obliged to humour them.

  9. Feminists of all stripes hate the straight up commercialisation of sex for the obvious reason.

    It removes the ability of women to use access to sex as a weapon.

    There’s no morality in it at all.

  10. Women are not saleable objects. As I often say, labour (and other services) is not people. it has never been legal to sell people in England, nor in the Dominions and Colonies since 18 something or other.

    To talk of “selling women” is a deliberate straw man. Selling the service of sexual intercourse is no more selling a person than selling the service of hairdressing or nursing. Both of which also involve intimate contact with the client, hence the choice.

    But I’m sure we’re going to get the Nordic Model anyway. The decriminalising bit is for the women (in fact, it isn’t criminal anyway, just things associated with it like brothels). The men will be criminalised.

    But, there will be no honest discussion. The Fems will never be put on the spot about the above straw man, or any of their other fallacies, distortions and fabrications. And with a cabal of middle class women now holding the key offices of State (PM, Home Sec, Justice Sec, Education and Equalities) I cannot believe there will be any other outcome than Nordicism.

  11. We could actually call this the Canadian Model. First you decriminalise, everyone cheers and lets their guard down, and then you suddenly bring in the criminalisation of customers.

  12. Bloke in Costa Rica

    The way things are going, pretty soon the ‘Nordic model’ of inter-sex relationships is that women will indeed be chattel commodities, with the understanding that they dress up in a mobile pup tent if they want to venture outdoors.

  13. Indeed a sickening prospect.

    Bluebottles who didn’t want to know about RoPrape rushing around like blue-arsed flies trying to bring down men engaging in voluntary paid transactions.

    Brass it out seems to be the solution. If they arrest you brass it out. Refuse to be shamed and know there aren’t enough jails. If sticking your dick up another blokes arse is no longer a cause of shame then why should paying a woman for sex without having to put up with years of her nonsense be a source of shame. Plus most of us could likely afford to rent much more physically attractive women than we have cash/status to land “romantically”. And we don’t have to hang around long enough to end up kissing her feet of clay or watching her arse expand in time to the passing years.

  14. Would it become illegal to make porn movies or is it ok if you are paying both sides (2 wrongs make a right) iwill there be an exemption, in which case couldn’t all service providers just offer a movie of the encounter as an option or claim they are auditioning for a future film

  15. Gawdalmighty what a lot of excitement! You’d never guess that the Conservative government is rowing back on all the Thicky Thatcherite nonsense. As they say, self-abuse makes you blind ( first to political reality).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *