No strings date prostitute Western Australia

no strings date prostitute Western Australia

No strings date prostitute Western Australia


In what ways have dating apps helped or hindered our lives? Hooking up for no-strings-attached fun was definitely happening long before Tinder, Grindr and even the invention of the internet. But, social media has definitely opened many doors in terms of ease of access. With these apps and to a lesser extent, online dating sites setting up a meeting between you and another person happens fast.

Living in this hookup culture makes us a lot more relaxed about engaging in casual sex, bringing about a change in attitude toward relationships and monogamy. Grindr and Blued have enabled casual sex and relationships in the gay community worldwide. The reach of these apps is felt especially in countries where homosexuality is illegal. In India, Afghanistan and Pakistan, people looking for same-sex relationships existed in covert groups that used public restrooms, bathhouses and parks as pick-up locations.

Without having the freedom of LGBT-friendly governments and societies, not to mention gay bars to meet others, dating apps have opened up the opportunities and brought attention to the struggle for equality. So now, more people are meeting like-minded individuals for anonymous encounters. More of us are connecting with strangers to form short-term sexual flings.

While this can put people at higher risk of something going awry — due to the lack of a screening process — are the apps to blame? In the UK, unsettling figures regarding Tinder and Grindr related crimes show a sharp increase since In the past two years, more than offences have been linked to dating apps. Whether or not men have a 'right' to access prostitution is a distraction and a practically pointless line of enquiry.

There will remain a demand for such services for as long as humans are around. The focus should be on decriminalising and destigmatising the industry, and providing sex workers with the safest and healthiest conditions possible. Everything else is red light window-dressing. This argument proposes driving the industry underground, where women will suffer abuse and death away from the prying eyes of society. I cannot see how criminalisation of buyer or seller will benefit these women in any way.

Although I do agree that the notion of men having a right to buy these services is ridiculous. I'd be wary of the Nordic Model's underlying basis that sex work is always and everywhere exploitation of women. It often is, but it often isn't as well.

It is a very black and white ideological stance about a very complex and variable issue. And I wouldn't think Jimmy Carter's intervention helps that much. Agreed we should take a very long hard look at the Nordic Swedish model of not only this but their policies on sexuality and sexual contact between people before we take any part of it on board. It really is an extreme extension of the man bad, woman good feminist theory. How is that so?

It makes women selling their services perfectly legal - they have nothing to fear from the law at all. So what penalty do they face? That their customers may be poached and punished by police? Frankly, if that still doesn't stop the customers coming, I would use that knowledge as a way to enact swift arrest on any customer who was violent or in any way abusive.

Basically you don't even need to show a burden of proof that he beat you or threatened you with a knife - you just have to prove he was a sex customer, which can easily be set up. Oh, now we'll be talking about how this is an evil abuse of women's power over men! Punishing women for being prostitutes but not their clients is equally as bad as punishing the clients but not the prostitutes.

Are you seriously suggesting that a man's right to a fair trial be taken away and that a prostitute claiming violence without producing proof is not a travesty of justice. As Dr Norma well knows there was never a suggestion that people be allowed to "buy" humans for sex Such deliberate, transparent and ham fisted attempts to mislead do your argument and yourself little credit.

Curious you've omitted any mention of male prostitutes and female clients First of all, the global sex trade is dominated by impoverished women and children, with male buyers. There are exceptions, but there is no denying that prostitution is a gendered issue. Secondly, dentists don't have to submit to having various orifices penetrated, to "paid rape" or to violence and torture that the buyer thinks he is entitled to because he has paid for the right.

Dentists also don't have to be dentists, much like prostitutes don't have to be prostitutes. Women and men who CHOOSE to be prostitutes do so because they have excluded the other options they could have chosen to generate an income.

In the end, it's personal choice. No matter the laws or legislation in place, people have and will continue to make that choice. The issue then becomes how to allow people to make that choice and conduct their chosen work in safety. The answer to that is to legalise it, keep it in the open, regulate and police the practice. What about all the people for whom it's not a personal choice, Mick? What about the people who have no education, had some children, and now have no other means to support themselves but by doing something they detest?

This can't even remotely be compared to just drudging through a bad job. This is an invasion of your personal space in every way imaginable. Ann, your arguments regarding a "lack of education" fall entirely on the shoulders of the women in Australia. Were we talking about trafficked women which is a very big problem here , I would suggest that you might be on to something.

However, prostitutes in Australia who "have no options" generally have self-limited their options through a deliberate choice not to value the free education that they receive.

It is very rare to meet women and men in prostitution who have been forced into it by parents or carers and who really have had no other options. By suggesting that women who have access to a welfare system, a public housing service and a free education have "no options" is an insult to the women who really have no options.

The Eastern European and Nigerian women trafficked into Scandinavian brothels. The South East Asian women trafficked into Australia. The women kidnapped and forced into brothels in Africa and Asia.

Having children is also a choice. They don't have to be sex workers, and they don't have to have children. True but that can be said of many people. Men performing heavy or dangerous work which quickly wrecks their bodies and pays little to support their families is the norm in a great many places. Have always said if a man had as much brains above the belt buckle as he has below it the world would be a better place, wink wink get the drift.

Firstly men are not 'buying women', they are renting them, or paying for a service. The real question here is about a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. If she chooses to provide sex for money for a normal healthy pastime, it makes the notion of mens' sex rights redundant. This is another example of the stupidity of the human rights project in trying to codify all human behaviour, and becoming unstuck by overreach into complex, one size fits all 'rights' that are often far removed from the real world and common sense, leading to at best farce, and at worst making things worse, or killing the things they love.

The 'unimaginable triviality of the male orgasm' - we take the pursuit of this seriously, please believe me. I always thought that Tony Abbot was not all there and he proved that to me now. What I never could understand is why they dumped Turnbul. Dutchy - you did read this article didn't you? What does it have to do with our Govt?

In theory, everyone has the 'right' to do what doesn't break the law. In reality the law is largely determined by the people. I guess then it would be fair to say through trial and error by the people, new 'rights' and the removal of existing ones happen as a result of democracy.

So I guess if people knew what was good for them, they would do what is right? Perhaps a bit simplistically put, but how do we tell someone something as simple as first do no harm to yourself before you go try and save the world?

I am thinking about this too, Christine. This talk about males' rights to prostitute is based on people's feelings. If most of people think this is right and proper to do, them, it would be right to do. Otherwise, prostitute will be illegal and immoral. However, in my opinion, prostitute is going to destroy families. At present, one male to one female is the best form of marriage because of this kind of 1v1 marriage could bring us the most highest rate of happiness in sex and common life.

This article is yet another example of feminist double standards. If prostitution is a bad thing, then both the buying and the selling of sex ought to be criminalised. If it's nmot a bad thing, then both should be legal. Either alternative would be fair. However, the feminist position here is that women selling sex should be legal, but men who buy it from them should be criminalised. This is obvious sexist discrimination against men. Once again, we can see that feminism is not about equality at all.

It is about the oppression of men and the supremacy of women. EP, it's an opinion piece by one person who may be considered a feminist. It is not a consensus manifesto produced by a monolithic group representing global feminism. I know it's easy to throw everthing you don't like into a single box and label it 'feminism', or 'political correctness', or 'the left', and then make easy assumptions based on your chosen method of categorization, but actually life is more complex and interesting than that.

Some feminists actually see prostitution as empowering women, especially if the choices of the women involved are free choices and not choices dictated by coercion, by circumstance, or by necessity.

Mark James - I base my position not on one opinion piece, but on a long and careful observation of what the most influential feminist organisaytions actually do. And what they do is always to the advantage of women, and the disadvantage of men. This is consistent with the central ideology of feminism: Feminists act on the false assumption that men, as a group, conspire to oppress and exploit women.

This assumption inevitably means that feminists see men as an enemy to be defeated, or at best, as a problem to be solved. Avcting to benefit women and oppress men is, therefore, at the heart of feminism. Again, EP, you are imagining 'feminism' to be some centrally controlled organisation defined by your own assumptions. Of course, much feminist theory is informed by the proposition that - to put it crudely - men oppress women.

But that is a necessary generalisation supported by the sheer-weight of evidence provided by patriarchal societies surely I don't need to provide examples? This in itself does not necessarily mean that all feminists see all men as an "enemy to be defeated", but rather that patriarchy has, historically and in other parts of the world today , privileged men over women, and that, if there is to be such thing as gender equality, then that imbalance needs to be corrected.

Women were oppressed, and feminism is, and has, to some extent, negated that oppression now. As far as I'm aware, mainstream feminist thought does not propose that the oppression of men is a requisite for the freedom of women. However, it is undoubtedly true that some men do consider that their freedom is being impinged by the freedom of women. The Oxford definition of feminism is: The advocacy of women? Nothing about defeating men the enemy. Now, any group has it's extreme end, and they often get the most attention by their very nature, that does not mean they represent the whole.

Many women of my generation X are feminists, that is they believe women should have equal opportunity to men. Given that most women see themselves as an equal partner in a relationship, etc this is self-evident. Equality is the key word. Basing your opinion on the extreme, not the whole, is like saying 'Muslims don't believe in democracy' or 'Greenies hate people' or 'Rich people will always exploit the poor' or 'white people are racist'. I will continue to call myself as a feminist, I won't let the extremists hijack the word and change it's meaning to 'man hater'.

The problem with feminism, and this is in general terms by citing your above listed definition, is that it is about the advocacy of women's rights. The reason I see this as a problem is because it is promoting women's rights to become equal to male rights and does not inherently work the other way around. Take domestic violence for example, it's an area where women are by far the majority victim, with limited avenues of protection. However if you are a victim of domestic violence you are much better off being a women, this is sole because you have easier access to support programs and legislation to back you as well as a chance of pressing charges, AVO etc.

Men have less protections once they have become a victim of domestic violence and so the fighting for 'women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Once again, feminism has it's place and it is necessary but we also need to coin a new term and start a new discussion about fighting for equality and leaving sex at the door. This discussion needs to be started so that when women's rights become an approximation of men's rights we can as a group start fighting to make 'all' of the in-equality cease to exist. I will make gross generalisations here, so I guess I'm being 'sexist', but I'll try.

Generally women talk to each other about their problems more than men, this can then lead to them joining together and advocating for change. I say that is a false premise. Women have heard about each others problems and decided to help each other, which has lead to change.

Men don't do this so much. My partner suffered abuse from his first wife for a decade, he has never told anyone and still hasn't except me , therefore no publicity, no pressure for change. This is slowly changing, which is good, but it's not feminists 'fault'. Just look up Erin Pizzey.

She was the first person in the world to open a refuge for battered women. She was chased out of England into exile by feminists making death threats. Why would feminists want to silence and harass her, because she noticed that a lot of the women in her shelters were equally violent as the men they were escaping and she wanted to open a shelter for male abuse victims. Up with this they would not put so they hounded her until she fled the country and the public sphere. They might not be the majority of feminists but their voices are louder, they have an effect and they don't care for males of any sort.

Just an interesting little tidbit: I disagree feminist have and still are fighting tooth and nail against the recognition of or the allocation of resources to men. The dictionary definition of feminism is different from the reality of mainstream feminism - which is advocacy in favour of women, and against men.

The few exceptions don't invalidate the fact that the great majority of feminist activities are about gaining more power and control for women over menm. No EP, you can't simply define words to fit your own assumptions and then expect those you're engaging with to agree.

Just try to imagine that feminism isn't so much about "gaining more power and control", but of wresting power and control away from the patriarchal societies that have subjugated and virtually enslaved women over many centuries and in some places, still do. An examination of history is now showing that this is not the case. Rather previously most history narratives centred on men.

When the outlook is broadened women are found to much freer agents than previously thought. Yes there was oppression but not at the levels feminists claim. To stick to the subject at hand women had the same conjectural rights as their husbands and many men found themselves riding the donkey backwards through town to the derision of the crowd for not meeting his wife's needs.

Well all I can say is 'The few exceptions don't invalidate the fact that the great majority of feminist critics are about gaining more power and control for men over women'.

Though I don't think that's true. The central tenet of feminism is gender equality. I don't believe there are many people who disagree with that, certainly not me, however if you look at feminist websites. Talk to feminists about the issue a very large group are of the opinion that they are fighting for women's rights in order to reach that equality.

So yes feminism is about equality. But in practice the fight is to improve women's circumstances so that they are equal to men. Actually, make them better. My wife earns more than me. I couldn't be happier. Why limit our family income to less than or equal to the double of mine!

See that I disagree with. If the main aim or tenet was gender neutrality then there would be many more people talking about domestic violence rather then violence against women. Gender neutrality would also mean that quotas would not be considered. It doesn't sound that way to me. Maybe you're quoting the official line. I don't think it's the reality. I am happy to be called a feminist, and I disagree with the article.

Apart from anything else trying to stop prostitution like stopping people taking drugs , is futile. Better to have it legal so some level of control and regulation can be established. And it assumes all women are dumb, helplesss victims who are incapable of making an informed choice and need to be protected.

EP sees 'feminists' as a homogeneous group who all believe the exact same thing. As is the case with any broad label it's just not true.

But if you have a tendency to oppose something, whether it be feminism, or conservatism, or religion, or environmentaliam, or anything else, it's easier to pretend that everyone who fits under that umbrella, and everything they believe is wrong, and therefore easily dismissed. While I agree for many it is shades of grey. What bothers many is the fact that extreme gender feminism is making the running and very few feminists are raising their voices against the extremes espoused by them.

They might not agree but many seem to be happy to go along for the ride. We all, I think, have heard the common thing of young women saying 'I'm not a feminist - but'.

The idea that a feminist is a man hating harpy has become prevalent. That is partly due to extreme feminists, and partly due to those who oppose them. I actually agree with you, I wish it wasn't so. I see a parallel in other areas. For example many people say 'why don't moderate Muslims speak up against extremists'. I don't know actually. But to then follow that with 'this means most Muslims actually agree with the extremists' is a false assumption.

So, all I can doing keep calling myself a 'feminist' while stressing I don't hate men, or want to oppress them, and hope what I say is judged on it's merits, not a label. The issue is that the most extreme are often the most salient in the media and human memory. The same can be said of most movements. Feminism is an extremely diverse field, and while it claims some cohesion being improving living for women , largely the aims and intents are diverse enough for feminism to be complex and 'heterogenic'.

But yes, there are some elements ruining it for others. I must admit I am puzzled at times by the extreme views of some self-professed feminists, who read misogynistic overtones into everything said or done in the public arena.

I DO consider myself a feminist and believe that women and men should be able to treat each other with respect and dignity. Or maybe this just makes me an egalitarian? All this terminology seems to have been hijacked online to pigeonhole people based on a single opinion they express.

Once again EP, your blue-tinted spectacles create a very curious view of the world. The Nordic model, first brought in in Sweden was absolutely framed within a feminist perspective, but it is, of course, gender neutral in its wording and action. Any purchaser of sex, or any pimp, regardless of their gender is liable to be prosecuted, regardless of the gender of the prostitute. The question, particularly from the AI perspective, is about power and control.

Who has it and who does not? The purchaser of sexual services always has complete free agency - no one forces anybody to go out and buy sex. The sex worker's situation is often not one of freedom. Of course it can be argued that police should go after cases of coercion and leave free agents to their own devices.

Here's a couple of factoids for you: Coercion into sexual bodage is illegal in every country on the planet. The FBI estimates , people are in sexual slavery around the world right now. Damned right it's a human rights issue. Damned right it's a feminist issue.

And you seriously think that this is about women wanting to oppress men? If we're talking about sexual relations in the Western world, it is overwhelmingly women who have power and control over men.

Women have all the reproductive choices while men have none; they get all the assistance from government in cases of violence; women can falsely accuse men of rape, and be free of repercussion. The Nordic model is ostensibly gender-neutral, but in reality it is designed to penalise men - and give women even more power and control. EP are you serious? The stats are always going to be hard to pin down hence the wide margins.

The Netherlands - to trafficking victims a year. Greece - , victims of sex trafficking in the country at any one time. Even cute little Switzerland - to vitims per year.

Every EU country has hundreds of trafficking cases per year that are processed, only a small proportion of what goes on and isn't caught out. And you want to bleat on about how it is women who sexually oppress men? I think his point is that. And the other I think there is a lot of truth in that argument. Good gosh, if she's withholding sex go and buy a flesh light! You have a right to gratification but not with any particular person unless they consent.

I mean if your teenage daughter was "withholding her love" as a form of protest would you class that as emotional abuse? Would you say she was manipulating you? Would you demand she love you as is your right? Love is an emotion, not an act. One cannot 'withhold' love, one either feels love or they don't, whether they choose to show it or not. But the thing you describe the teenage daughter doing, withholding affection as a form of protest, is called being angry.

It does not preclude love and has nothing at all to do with sex or prostitution. Much of it estimates. When you look at prosecutions they are found to be that, estimates which by there very nature are guesses.

Basil, Those FBI figures are not to be believed. The FBI classes all prostitution as "sexual slavery", whether or not the persons involved consent or not.

It is a definition forced on the Agency by the religious right. I doubt that emess. I'm pretty sure that there are far more than , prostitutes in the world. The Nordic model recognises prostitution as a form of violence against women- a system where impoverished women and children are bought and consumed by wealthier men. Criminalising the selling of sex does not help these women who are trying to survive- nor does it allow them to report violence against them.

By criminalising the buyers, the focus is on ending demand. A significant percentage of johns surveyed said they would be deterred from buying women if they could be arrested, or if they would be fined. Fines are typically substantial, and they are sent to the john's home address where his wife and children often live.

Also key to the Nordic model are exit programs to help women who wish to leave the industry to have that option. The Nordic model is based on the false and sexist premise that men are exploiters, and women are victims. It is this distorted view which allows sex work to be seen as somehow diffenet to other paid work. The Nordic model isn't about saving anyone from exploitation.

It's about shaming and punishing men for being men, and nothing more. I suspect the prostitutes in Sweden might be wealthier than their male clients. In any case, assuming who is wealthier is a fact not in evidence.

I've never seen any stats on it. There is also anecdotal evidence to suggest that a lively sex industry reduces the rate of sex related violence eg. I'm with you, Dr Norma.

I feel a lot better about my son to know that he would find it repugnant to make a 'purchase' from a 'sex worker' as he were in a computer store. One can agree that sexual desire is fundamental, yet totally disagree that pathetic men have a 'right' to buy sexual release. There cannot be grace and equality in such a transaction.

To name a couple: Men whose wives have totally turned off sex. What do you imagine they do? Pester their wives or turn to prostitutes which satisfy them and take pressure off wives. Men with disabilities often turn to prostitutes a great many of them who provide for them not just physically but emotionally. So I think your view is perhaps blinkered.

Almost certainly your son will hire a sex worker if he ever gets desperate enough. The male sex drive tends to override ephemeral moral theories when push comes to shove.

That is an offensive notion. Men are not animals, we are not born rapists. There are plenty of men out there who can control their urges and do not think their desires outweigh women's dignity and human rights. I believe statistics show that young men are only a small component of those who use sex workers. John that attitude is entirely why there are radical feminists. In fact your post will probably directly spawn another one. I agree with "Free to choose". All coercion to make any person male or female carry out prostitution should dealt with severely and swiftly.

If, on the other hand, it is a transaction between consenting adults, then this is a matter for them to decide. After all, I recently read an article on this site I think where a woman put forward the proposition that a man should always buy dinner for a woman on a date. One could easily call that expectation "prostitution".

If something is to be illegal, then it should be illegal for both the buyer and the seller. The write seems to imply that no woman has ever chosen to be a prostitute. This is nonsense and devalues any good points about dealing with forced prostitution. Mark, the enforcement of men buying a woman dinner only becomes prostitution if he expects sex in return. I would suggest that a woman who expects a free meal and a man who expects sex in kind should both be disappointed. If I'm reading that right, and I may not be, you seem to be saying it is the sex itself which you find objectionable.

If the woman expects a meal and the man expects sex and they both know this and they both agree to this, then surely neither should be disapointed. I see no reason for you to deny them except that you object to sex as the commodity.

Would you feel differently if she agreed to paint his house for the free meal? Would you feel diferently if it was she buying the dinner? Is it a legal commercially-available service?

Is a man's orgasm "trivial"? Not to the man concerned. You could argue that the goods were very processed. And therefore GST is applicable. Fresh produce should be GST free. Unless women are forced into prostitution as sex-slaves by pimps, there should be no quibble by outsiders. Women today are generally pretty easy when it comes to sex. Changed times not but You are deliberately obscuring the reality for most women and children in prostitution. The majority start as children.

Factors include poverty, homelessness, addiction, prior abuse. Does any of this sound like free choice? It is not work, it is gender inequality and a violation of their human rights. I think it is clear Dr Norma has come at this issue from a feminist and factual perspective, and not a puritanical one as you suggest.

Do you think everyone who values the human rights of women and girls as puritanical? I was carefully even-handed in my original post, which you have ignored.

Men also offer sex services. Women also buy sex services. It's about the service, not the gender - except to Norma and you. I addressed the issue of coercion and law enforcement separately, as should you.

It's not the topic under discussion. If you don't want me to deduce a Puritanical motive behind your gender-specific attitude then you will have to clarify your motive, because your post ignores the numbers of men and men-children in the field.

I don't agree with some of these things but because of risks of poverty and homelessness I made concessions. It is about abuse not about the action. Otherwise anyone working in a job they don't like would be in the same boat. And you are ignoring the people who do consentually, and with full informed consent enter into the industry. Slavery and human traficing needs to be dealt with. This does include sex trafficing but is not only sex trafficing.

So would you like to ignore forced labour? Or do you find forced labour as a form of human trafficing and enslavement as abhorrent as sex trade. If someone makes a bad career choice it is not our job to legislate to prevent that. Nor is it our job to pass judgement. It is our job to prevent abuses and human rights abuses the article should be about human trafficing, not prostitution.

By our I mean community, local, national and global. I don't see why sex has to come into this debate. I see it as an issue more about forced labor. Is the prostitute willingly exchanging sex for money. If not, then sure, prosecute customer and pimp alike. I'd like to see gender removed, for fairness. Statistics shouldn't trump the rights of males who are being forced into prostitution, whatever their percentage may be.

I don't think I would care any less about female rights if you were to extend them to males too. Crisso, You've hit the nail on the head here.

The actual problem here is exploitation, not prostitution. Exploitation of anyone is bad, prostitution per se between consenting adults as a mutual choice is nobodies business but theirs. There should be requirements around health and safety, although I'm not sure how you police that, and I do think there should be some state regulation. Wherever you find someone with an axe to grind they will be able to turn an issue into a gender issue if they want to.

Lets not forget that there are many notable instances where the Madams run the show, and women force women into prostitution. I have a friend who used to be a sex worker and then left to enter conventional retail. She worked her way up and ended up managing a high turn over business in not too long. Then she quit and went back to sex work. She get's more respect from her customers and get's paid much better.

This should be legal and should be the highlight of a woman 'choosing' to do what they want. Forced labour in any form cannot be tollerated, condoned or supported directly or indirectly.

This is the same problem that happens every time in discussing this issue because people want to oversimplify and conflate incredibly complex issues so they can appear as though they are a rational authority on the overall topic. It is transparent that his stereotype is used as a means to illustrate prostitution as a voluntary and informed career choice, where the prostitute has options and is master of their own life.

This is overwhelmingly not the case, but people don't let it get in the way of their personal desire to justify why prostitution is completely fine and harm free in their eyes. I agree with your diagnosis but I disagree with your disease. You are saying that prostitution is the problem. Where as others, including myself, are saying that prostitution is not the problem, slave trade is etc. You are not letting the fact that a service position is fine and not harmful.

You are letting the criminal elements, which is not the norm here in Aus cloud your personal desire to justify why prostitution is the problem. Please show something which illustrates why prostitution is the problem?

Can you would be my question or can you only show where prostitution coupled with other factors is a problem? If you can only show problems in prostitution coupled with other factors then the prostitution isn't the problem.

The other things are. I am finding myself agreeing with both sides of many of these conversation today. How about this as a solution? Men who utilise the services of sex workers who are found to be slaves are punished severely.

Increase the risk factor for the consumer. I think you may have jumped the gun. I think your own argument subject to your own method of critique would lead you to a balanced position. I believe prostitution is a difficult and controversial topic. I find it very telling that you could draw a distinct conclusion about what I think about the topic overall on the basis that I said that the moet-sipping high-rolling glamour girl sex worker was a mythical stereotype whom is virtually polarized to the experience of the vast majority of sex workers.

I do believe prostitution is problematic and I think your post is na? It exists subject to and in relation to the conditions of societies both here and across the globe. When poverty comes in the front door , love goes out the window. What price does the planet pay for love. Love is the positive force that drives all things creative. There can never be any progress have we not love in what we do. In fact, the day when we cannot afford to love is perhaps the day we all get sick and die a crippling death.

Lots of studies have been done to prove the link between stress and disease. Does that in another words prove the link between love and health? And the need for 'love' to exist perhaps? All of life's hard questions!

But don't get me wrong that is far from a complaint! Caroline, The male orgasm is unimaginably trivial in comparison to the amazing heights of female orgasm.

In his lover very few men aim for his woman to orgasm the best she can. When a woman loses control in a second mind blowing orgasm with many undulating waves of the uterus up to. Does any man want to go there to satisify his woman? No, so long as he gets himself off. Alison Cann - If you think the male orgasm is unimaginably trivial, why should any male care about the female orgasm?

What goes around, comes around. Every woman responds differently to different stimuli. If the woman is unwilling to reveal what works for her, or doesn't even know what works for her, why should the man feel bad about it? Kalgoorlie a remote gold mining town in WA has the infamous Hay Street bordello area for over a hundred years where girls voluntarily provide a sexual service in return for money they call themselves sex workers I am unaware of any man being convicted of rape in Kalgoorlie in that time.

Just want to know then is Prostitution paid rape? The very threat that men will rape if they cannot" get it" demonstrates ideas about what men think they are entitled to and what women have been taught about what men are entitled to!

Surely rather than preventing rape, men buying the right to access women's bodies for their own gratification merely reinforces the notion that women's bodies are for their use, and that they are entitled to use women's bodies.

It is a rapist mentality. Uhhh Knowing Kalgoorlie there's probably a fair amount of rape but the women involved don't want to go to the cops either. It's not exactly a vibrant community of educated and socially responsible individuals. Women or men for that matter should not have to prostitute themselves in order to make a living, but there is a vast difference between someone who is virtually kidnapped and sold into sex slavery, say in the Middle East and an adult female who elects to go on the game in a western country, because the money is good and her health is not at risk.

In the latter example, it really is more like a formal business contract. One side agrees to provide a service and the other side agrees an amount in payment. This is an agreement between two consenting adults we hope and subject to any other laws, to interfere with their mutually agreed activity could be an infringement of their rights.

The author of the article, being a member of Amnesty Australia, obviously has a barrow to push and I'm more concerned about the barrow than the contents. Male or female - who said sex was someone's right? If women chose to "rent' themselves that is their choice There you go a prime example of why the ABC budget is obscene if they are not attacking Tony Abbott the the best they can come up with is some poorly written essay on the machinations of prostitution from someone who thinks they should have an opinion because they are a woman.

Well they let you have a say. If you don't like it, don't read it. There are plenty of other websites that will pander to your "tastes". Thank you Mark I am unsure about you but I am a taxpayer and I like to see my compulsory contributions spent wisely and I will use a forum were I contribute a part of my income to pay it's way to express my displeasure when I feel like it.

This seems to be the standard line included in more and more comments from those with "outrage" to express. I am also outraged, but not by people expressing an opinion I don't agree with on a website that I enjoy perusing. I'm grateful for such a medium. Mortan they would publish an essay on the importance of prostitution as well if such a thing were feasible. At a time when women are being trafficked in enormous numbers and when great areas are facing the reality that education for women is under threat, Amnesty is able to waste time on imaginary struggles about "male sexual rights"?

When a woman in Somalia faces death for her religious views, when women are being flogged for "illicit" sexual relations? When FGM is being introduced into areas of Africa where it has never existed? I have never even heard of an argument of a man's right to sexual release. In medieval times a woman could get a divorce in Christian Europe if her husband did not "meet her needs" but I think that was more to do with procreation.

This whole article seems very odd. The rights of a woman to do what she wants with her body seem to be been forgotten. Perhaps it is restricted to abortion, a decision in which this argument is used like a bludgeon.

There is an even more basic flaw: While that may be the case in our society, in the past prostitution has been seen as fairly high class occupation, at least at some social levels. In other societies it has also been seen as a natural part of life: Dr Norma seems to elevate the sexual act to some special place, rather than being a somewhat longer and more exiting sneeze. In this she follows the view of some religions which have, I would hazard, a very different view of women's rights than she does.

It is not the act of prostitution that degrades but society's treatment of it. And it is not the act of prostitution that creates the suffering and oppression, it is society's decision to step in make it illegal or create the conditions where criminals can control it.

Amnesty International started losing the plot when it moved away from focusing on prisioners of conscience and broadened its mission out to include fighting for things like a right to clean water. Clean water is vital yes, but if you fight for everything everywhere, you will end up winning nowhere.

Other organisations campaign for clean water and every other right but AI took up every cudgel it could. I may not be the only person who is having trouble understanding the author's point of their post. Amnesty may have been originally interested if they were talking about the forced selling of people into prostitution. But saying its now a crime for men to pay women for sex and police should target the men, but not the women seems to be a half hearted effect that is doomed for failure.

What about men paying other men for sex, or women paying either men or women for sex. It sounds like they are still allowed. Yes there is trafficking but at no where the levels feminists tell us when you look at the actual figures. If you extend the field to all slavery the picture changes in that men and boys far outweigh the number of women sold into slavery.

Feminists by demanding resources be directed largely at sexual trafficking hinder the stamping out of slavery. While I don't agree with Amnesty's stance on this issue, I have to point out that they are a large organisation that tackle a whole range of issues. They can walk and chew gum at the same time. A woman has the right to choose any job she likes, regardless of whether other people judge that job to be 'distasteful' or 'immoral'. All this carrying on about 'mens' rights' takes focus away from the fact that it is our right to choose our own work - and in fact many of us do choose to do this work for some very enduring and valid reasons.

Caroline Norma, go away. Myself and the other sex workers in Melbourne are tired of reading this garbage. I missed the part of the piece where Dr Norma said prostitution was "distasteful" or "immoral". I did read about how the sex trade is a violation of women's human rights. Were we reading the same piece? Anna, if it's not immoral or distasteful, please explain to Roxy how she has had her human rights violated by freely choosing her occupation.

I wouldn't presume to speak for Roxy and her lived experiences. Prostitution is not a choice for most, it is a lack of choice. Anna, you appear to be arguing that because there is a problem with trafficking, sex slavery etc in Africa, Eastern Europe, India and so on that sex work should be made illegal in Australia. Great article Caroline Norma, and thank you for writing and publishing it it. Being a social constructivist I thoroughly endorse the notion that mens' entitlement to buy or rent womens' bodies is socially prescribed.

Men 'do it because they can'. It is not something handed down on a tablet by Moses, nor is it a 'natural' right, whatever that is! Men have had access to womens' bodies because they are physically stronger and historically richer. I hope the Nordic position prevails. As a social constructivist, what is your opinion on women's entitlement to sell or rent their own bodies?

If you believe that society has a right to tell women whether they can or can't "sell or rent" their own bodies for prostitution, should society have a right to tell women whether they can have an abortion? If, however, you believe that a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes, how can you object to the other party to the transaction participating?

I would suggest that men do not "do it because they can". It seems far more likely that men "do it because they want to". But that would not fit the Man the Oppressor of Women prism that some use to view the world and particularly our society. PS Is social constructivist a job title or a philosophical viewpoint? Or is it a sub-branch of "Feminist Studies", that mysterious department that somehow manages to survive all cutbacks in university funding?

Social constructivism is a very broad philosophy which posits that all meanings are merely consensus positions. There is no objective truth, but rather there is an agreed upon 'truth' that is arrived at through social interactions between individuals ie all truth and meaning is simply a social construction. As a solipsist I think the idea has a lot more merit than most of the followers of the philosophy of science give it credit for.

Having said all of that, I'm not quite sure why jellybeans thought that mentioning social constructivism added to her point. No, social constructivism would not dictate anything. Social constructivism would suggest that any such rules are merely status quo descriptions which can be freely altered through the seeking of a new consensus position. I reject your suggestion that men believe we have an entitlement to buy or rent a woman's body.

I believe that men and women should be free to avail themselves of services freely offered, but this is not the same thing as believing men have an entitlement to something that doesn't belong to them.

A social constructivist should recognise as well that propagating this notion that those sorts of attitudes are the norm amongst men is counter-productive as it entrenches the mindset of those who do believe that, and it pushes away support from those of us that also want to quash those attitudes. I agree with a number of the other comments. If there is coercion or exploitation or practices that are unsafe, then the police should act to protect the female or male sex workers involved.

Other than that, we should keep our noses out of other people's bedrooms. As for Jimmy Carter disapproving of the whole notion of people paying for sex, that's what I would expect from a Southern Baptist. The author disapproves too - fair enough. But she doesn't need to torture the English language quite so much to make her opinion sound like objective truth.

I fail to see how Jimmy Carter's religion is relevant. He runs a human rights organisation and has strongly condemned men's violence against women, as well as religious institutions that promote women's subordination. I sure liked Caroline's opening statement!

Such reductionism is certainly an attention grabber. However I think the two entities male power and female power are diametrically opposed and different albeit each inherently equal, valid and necessary. In this diametry the shared event is a choice or decision by each party to participate in cheap sex. Such a decision by each party to participate is multi-faceted and comes down to each party in the sex act being held accountable at all levels of human responsibility as it is each their own 'story' of their lived life.

I've concluded that so much comes down to each and every person being responsible for themselves, but in a context where there are sensitive, equitable and strong, ie enforceable law to allow personal liberty but not at the cost of threat to a person's physical safety in a mutually organised and shared activity. I don't like to think of cheap sex for either party. Each has a different story. Abuse towards the other in terms of assault and battery beyond the sex act is most and primarily unacceptable and warrants a remedy.

Women should not be forced to anything they don't want to be involved in. This also applies to men. But if you look back at history it wasn't men that started selling themselves.

If you want to make it illegal half of the marriages would also be illegal. Protecting the rights of the customers of sex workers seems like a backwards and misguided approach.

It is far more important to protect the rights of sex workers. It is the sex workers who are at the greatest risk of being exploited. I'm reminded of the George Carlin quip; "Why should it be illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away? Because when money enters the equation there also arises the fact that the seller may not actually want to do the act, they just want the money. Therefore they don't want to have sex - but they are still willing to do it.

See how that is a moral grey area? It's not like not wanting to work is the same thing as actually being uncomfortable and unhappy to do whatever your work is.

Everyone should have a right to consensually and freely engage in sex under their own conditions. This means men and women should be allowed to buy and sell sex. However if someone is forced into that position there is a problem. If a woman want's to sell sex that is her choice and should be respected.

If a woman is forced into circumstances through threats, abuse etc by a pimp then the pimp should get in deep trouble. If a man knowingly engages in sex with a forced prostitute he should be severely punished and if he unknowingly engages in sex with a forced prostitute then he should get a slap on the wrist.

Enough to let him know that supporting forced trade is abhorrent and he will be taken more seriously next time. But if tow people choose to engage in sex and exchange money how is it any different to any other physical service? Imagine the world without that word. Imagine sex workers selling a service, not selling themselves in some kind of biblical failing. People sell massages and physiotherapy and yoga. Why is selling sexual relief any different? I realise that prostitution is synonymous with crime and degradation, but isn't that more because it's illegal and 'immoral' rather than that it's sexual?

Women who work in sex sell sex, not 'themselves'. If religious attitudes and sexual prudence were removed from sex work there would be no more trafficking in sex workers than there is in cleaners or gardeners.

Prostitution is no more intrinsically wrong than factory work - like drug use its harmful effects are predominantly the consequence of its legal and moral status rather than its existence or profligacy.

There is a lot of trafficking in cleaners and gardeners though. Any sort of labour will be trafficked because it is cheaper labour than market-rate labour. Mitor, the demand for sex induces many people to exploit supply. That usually means exploiting women who don't want to do it. Really, do you equate your sexual experiences as being the same as your working experiences?

: No strings date prostitute Western Australia

Perky breasts find a fling 421
Find sex local free sex meet ups New South Wales Local nsa sex cbd escorts Sydney

No strings date prostitute Western Australia

THE SECRET WAY TO GET DOWN OR DATE WITH PEOPLE NEARBY! Love & Fun are closer than you think - find nearby local singles and new friends who. 21 Jan Click to read more about how to date in this new age. Hooking up for no-strings -attached fun was definitely happening long before Tinder. 7 Nov · New York Post · The Australian · · Storyful · Harper Collins She explains: “Most guys just want some no strings adult fun and book me for But Lilly, from Gatwick, West Sussex, admits that using the app to find satisfied, that's more than most men can say after a Tinder date.”.