Julie Bindel’s argumentation

Needs a bit of a polish this:

The applicants claim that the law contravenes three articles in the European convention on human rights: the right to life; prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment; right to a private life. One of the arguments is that the law puts women’s lives in danger by driving prostitution underground; that they are more likely to face violence from sex buyers because only “bad” punters will take the risk; and that women have the right to make autonomous decisions to sell sex.

There is no evidence for these claims – on the contrary, research in those countries that have adopted the abolitionist model has shown that rates of violence and homicide perpetrated on women by pimps and punters is far lower than in decriminalised regimes.

Note the “s” on “claims” in the second paragraph. And yet the point she doesn’t address is whether adult consenting women do or do not have the right to make autonomous decisions to sell sex.

To which the correct answer is yes, of course they do. Or at least should. Hey, even ring it around with all sorts of constraints. Poor women can’t because they’re being driven into it by economics, druggies can’t because addiction, kiddies certainly can’t anyway and so on. But clean in the addiction sense women who desire to rent out orifices because they desire to? Who in buggery is Julie Bindel to tell them they may not? Should not – just fine, Bindel away at that – but not may not?

But then that sort of skipping over logic is the only thing that allows Bindel’s case to gel……

21 thoughts on “Julie Bindel’s argumentation”

  1. Off topic.

    John Bercow – what a surprise (not). What a cvnt.

    Still, that’s bad for Labour, so that’s good.

  2. Bindel’s monotonous rants are part of the reason I no longer frequent the once entertaining unherd site.

  3. Was entertained to see that Julie feels we blokes should not pay for sex. Does she mean we should get it for free?

  4. The Meissen Bison

    Hasn’t Bercow come out strongly against the xenophobic, nationalistic Conservatives?

    The only surprising thing is that a little man can make himself smaller.

  5. I’m pretty sure that the poor women would quickly point out that they were only poor because they weren’t allowed to monetize their only asset.

    Boganboy,
    The feminist view is that women decide which men get sex. Prostitution is bad because men are circumventing that control by buying it on the black market.

  6. “The feminist view is that women decide which men get sex. Prostitution is bad because men are circumventing that control by buying it on the black market.”

    If that was the feminist view, shouldn’t they be opposed to women giving it away for free as well then? I mean its hardly difficult for a man to get laid these days, without resorting to prostitutes, or having to agree to marry someone (in a 1950s style) so if feminists are against women giving men what men want, why is it only the ones who get hard cash in return who they are attempting to close down?

  7. “One of the arguments is that the law puts women’s lives in danger by driving prostitution underground; that they are more likely to face violence from sex buyers because only “bad” punters will take the risk; and that women have the right to make autonomous decisions to sell sex.”

    I seriously doubt that bans on prostitution stop it at all. The police do the odd raid of a massage parlour with the local newspaper in tow to make the frightened people think it’s being stopped, but it’s almost impossible to police a transaction between two consenting adults.

    What it does do is to blur the edge between the bad and the OK stuff. If you’re a drug dealer, you do not care how old your customers are. There are no penalties to selling to a 16 year old instead of a 21 year old. Legalising porn in America protected children. When it was illegal, no-one in the industry went to the cops to say they thought a 16 year old was on a film.

  8. Jim,
    Women should only have sex because they want to, not because they have to, so giving it away is fine.

    Also, I don’t know where you get the idea it’s easy to get laid, for some men, sure, but for all men, no, absolutely not.

  9. As usual with these so called “experts” Bindel’s writing on a subject she knows absolutely nothing about.
    It’s starts with the premise that there’s a surplus men wanting to find prostitutes & women need to be enticed into the business. The truth is that there is a vast surplus of women want to sell pussy & a vast shortage of men wanting to pay them for it. Prostitution’s just another field where women seek to monetise what nature’s been good enough to provide them with. Also see fashion models, aspiring pop stars, film actresses, TV presenters, PR flacks, office receptionists, the trophy wives on the arms of fat ugly but wealthy men, social media influencers… You will note many of those professions have many more aspiring to get into them than demand requires. Nature has provided far too many pretty girls.
    From there it all down to simple economics. There’s hardly any money to be made in the business other than by the exceptional. So it’s hard to make any money out of it. The word “pimp” is often used. What’s that supposed to mean apart from a derogatory term? The girls will pay a guy who finds them clients. So does that make employment agencies pimps? Or Linkedin? Here in Spain, where laws are fairly relaxed, they’ll share their earnings with clubs , apartments & villas provide services attract clients. You want to prosecute your garage for providing earnings opportunities for motor mechanics? Is it because there’s more demand for office staff & car repairs than there is for prossies? Yes there’s the sort of tosser will get his girlfriend on the game so he can sponge off her earnings. In the same way there’s blokes will watch their beloved go off to work, then enjoy a day of sofa surfing in front of the TV. But the idea you could make a fortune by corralling a string of unwilling women is purest fantasy. Your overheads compete with the girls are working independently for their own money. You price yourself out of the market. The less you pay them the more thugs you have to employ to keep them grafting & thugs are more expensive than hookers.
    France has criminalised paying a prostitute has it? Well done France! How’s that working out for you? A good friend’s just come back from working France. Apartment brothel in Rennes. Didn’t do too badly. Better than staying in Spain. She’s interested in working the UK. Do you want her? Or is that me pimping again? All that happens when you put legal impediments on prostitution is it makes it harder for prostitutes to find clients. So they’ll pay more for the client finding services. Further down that route you go, the more you hand the game over to the criminals.
    Why do I know so much about it? I like the girls. Despite them being lazy slags with a sense of self entitlement could see them in a career in the UK public sector if they could manage to get up in the morning. No one else would have them. They can be enormous fun. Undoubtedly beats golf. I’ve certainly got more in common with them than the denizens of England’s suburbia. They’re not doing any different from what I used to. Selling their talents to the public. Just that I was fortunate that mine were in much greater demand.

  10. @Andrew M
    Two points. Prostitution’s been ubiquitous throughout history. Yes, occasionally there’s been attempts to step on it. Usually by religious interests who wish to claim a monopoly on morals.

    Your link just takes one to yet another load of pretentious waffle on the subject. There is one very obvious argument against gay marriage. Marriage has never been about the couple involved. Why should it be? A couple don’t need marriage. It’s about the couple’s relationship with the wider society. Marriage is the process by which society acknowledges the couple’s partnership. And accepts the obligations that stem from it. It was always the joining of two families & shared responsibilities for the future of the children of the marriage. Each partner becomes a member of the other’s family. Self interest. Preserving the gene line. So the problem with gay marriage is it creates obligations that the obliged may not agree with. Where’s the self interest? By definition, there can’t be any prodigy that derive from both families. Why should anyone acquire obligations to someone who just happens to be sleeping with a relative? They aren’t expected to accept obligations to their friends, are they?

  11. Boris Johnson said in a compendium of his columns in a 1995 column Mr Johnson remarked that British women have been “socially gestapoed into the workplace”, which led to them raising “unloved and undisciplined children” more likely to commit crime.
    Do you think that would include prostitution?
    Or do Tories think women should only be allowed to work in the sex in industry?
    Boris thinks women are just sex objects.
    Boris thinks working class men are criminal and feckless.
    This from a man who has never done a days work in his life.

  12. Roslyn

    Admire your decision to take your argument to ‘the enemy’, but you are going to have to get up a lot earlier in the morning than this to have a chance of persuading anybody.

    Meanwhile, as your homework, here is the following:
    ‘Assertions are not arguments. Discuss’

  13. Bloke in Spain,

    “Why do I know so much about it? I like the girls. Despite them being lazy slags with a sense of self entitlement could see them in a career in the UK public sector if they could manage to get up in the morning.”

    Too good for the public sector.

    I rate working girls higher than lawyers, doctors, civil servants, teachers, and financial advisors. Because those people fail to do their jobs much more than prostitutes. You go and see a girl, you tell her what you want, she sorts you out 90+% of the time.

    You imagine if a government delivered 90% of its party conference promises. You’d be ecstatic. Government are like turning up expecting a hot blonde girl and getting a middle-aged pre-op tranny instead.

  14. @Andrew M: re Chesterton’s fence.

    Until contraception and paternity testing, there was clearly a considerable social value in assigning paternal responsibility for children – especially before society was so rich that single mothers could raise a child alone. Nowadays there’s no reason why people cannot have sex just for fun.

Leave a Reply

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