May 4, 2021 - 1:36pm
In a Times column today entitled, ‘When sex with a prostitute is a human right’, Melanie Phillips praises Justice Hayden who, in a ruling last week, said it would be lawful for carers to arrange for a 27-year-old autistic man to pay for sex. Phillips says Hayden has ‘shown compassion’, and mentioned a piece I had written on the topic, saying:
Far from it; my concern for “disadvantaged individuals” forms my position on prostitution — namely that it should be abolished and that women be supported to exit the sex trade. It is quite incredible that the rights of women have been largely ignored, not only in the ruling, but by several ‘human rights’ advocates commenting on the case.
In the judgement, details of the effect of C’s condition on his behaviour was outlined: ‘C could be extremely challenging; his behaviour was sometimes aggressive and dangerous. In 2011, it was necessary for C to move out of his family home.’
Violence against prostituted women at the hands of pimps and punters is a well-documented problem. But the implication in Hayden’s ruling is that sex, in this case with a person who is doing it for cash and not her own desire, will enable C to let off some steam.
Phillips’s article suggests that a man’s disability somehow impairs their ability to form intimate relationships. This claim is one of the clearest examples of how the sex buyers’ so-called ‘human rights’ have been placed above those of the prostituted woman.
This argument is dangerous because it reinforces the problematic belief that disabled people are unable to have consensual sex and are therefore compelled to pay for it. Moreover, it suggests that disabled people’s carers are responsible for ensuring their clients’ sexual satisfaction.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMr Bindell’s argument depends on the assumption that women who become prostitutes are always being forced into that occupation because they have no other options, a common claim from feminists.
The problem with this assumption is that there is no evidence for it. Although it is true that some women are trafficked by criminals, that certainly isn’t the case for the vast majority of women, many of whom choose prostitution as an easy means of making money.
And because most prostitutes have chosen their profession, Ms Bindell has placed herself in the rather hypocritical position of telling other women what they can and cannot do with their bodies under the pretext of supporting women’s rights. For feminists like Bindell, women have the right to choose- provided they choose what feminsts want.
By the way Julie, the proper pronoun to use with a construction such as ” a man’s disability somehow impairs” is “his”(not ‘their’) ability…
The use of the plural pronoun “their” in place of the singular “he/she was initially used with indefinite subjects such as “someone uses their”, but has now bled over to replace all singular uses, even when the gender is known.
The PC use of “their” is an illiteracy used to further the mistaken political belief that gender somehow doesn’t exist- an amusing error on Bindell’s part, given that her entire argument rests on claims about gender and rights.
“For feminists like Bindell, women have the right to choose- provided they choose what feminsts want.” – Bingo.
“For feminists …” (plural) they
When he worked for HMRC my brother interviewed quite a lot of prostitutes. He was part of a team that carried out VAT raids on houses of ill repute – amazingly, quite a few still exist and his team’s interest was in those where the operator was also the owner (so could pay the VAT).
The prostitutes were from the Baltics mostly and they did 6-month “tours of duty” in which they would earn about £60,000 to £100,000 in cash, net. They’d then go home, take a break, and return a month or two later, with a new hairdo, photos and name. And they’d do it all over again, apparently a “new” girl, for another 6 months. And so on.
They were absolutely all volunteers, attracted to the easy money. They recruited each other. Quite a few enjoyed the s3x as well. Apparently it’s a myth that all punters are ugly old men. As several of them put it, the men aren’t paying for s3x, they’re paying for the women to go away after the s3x.
Being ideologically convinced that it’s all men’s fault, and if only they’d stop it there’d be no more prostitution, is laughably naive. The demand is matched by the supply and always will be.
Thoughtcrime detected.
Please refrain from citing real-world evidence when discussing muh victimhood. These girls are simply stupid women who need to have strong empowered people (as long as they’re also women) to make their decisions for them, right Julie?
“Well they would say that wouldn’t they?”
Beautiful grammatical pedantry, I salute you sir.
As a former professor of literacy, I don’t regard concern about the abuse of language as “pedantry”, but as a necessary part of political hygiene. Those who cannot form proper sentences are probably not well-placed to lecture the rest of us on ethics, or anything else.
Are you saying poor grammar equals poor ethics?
No, he isn’t. Go back and read what he actually wrote.
I think he’s saying if you don’t subscribe to his grammatical rules your opinion on anything isn’t worth listening to.
I’ll remember that the next time the bloke fixing my car splits an infinity.
A split infinity is still an infinity
I read it a few times before I commented.My take is that in his opinion poor sentence structure negates ones opinion on anything. The ability to communicate ones thoughts should be enough regardless of sentence structure if you get my meaning.
Well said.
How many crack hores have you known? Sure it is their life, their body, but is more complicated than that. Maybe you have not been on the hard and low side of life enough to know that what the middle class call choice only exists in positions of security, good mental health, good family and friends, a future, and being in control, having boyfriends not addicts, and are not drug abusers themselves. I believe those pulled into the sex industry mostly do not have those middle class kind of comforts going on.
The girls of Rochdale, how are they different from the girls in your community? Just the same and ‘It could happen to anyone’? Or were they damaged and so the choices in life were not the same? Ever hear of a ‘Lot Lizard’? You think this is something choose after making a spread sheet of the up and down side of being a truck stop prostitute? Or has life gotten away from them and so they do what they feel they must – and it is NOT fun.
I don’t know any crack ho’s, as you so elegantly put it.
But when I was a young man, I had a number of girlfriends, two of whom told me, appropo of nothing, that they were thinking of becoming prostitutes “for the sex”, a confession that quite surprised me. From that point on, my eyes were opened about women and their motives.
Sorry, but the victim game’s getting a bit old, don’t You think?
The ‘victim Game’ is Very old, but that is because we no longer use the word in a meaningful way. Now it is a political term. But victims REALLY do exist, although the word is so watered down we no longer trust it.
What sort of girls did you hang out with?
Normal ones from the sound of it.
Apropos spelling… :o)
The Rochdale cases were surely illegal use of children , which our police , social and care home services should have been prosecuted-I presume the author is talking about consenting adults?
Indeed, The rich have the same right to sleep under bridges as the poor folk do, but for some reason they seem to exercise that right far less often.
THen there was Heidi Fleiss in the 90’s who ran an upscale “escort” service in NYC where, according to her, she earned 1million dollars her first 4 months into the business. She had so many woman wanting to join up that she had to refuse many. I suspect that given their clientele and the money they made, these women – who were “escorts” not sex workers, did not consider themselves victims.
Heidi did get her comeuppance however, After being charged with substance abuse, she ended up in a small town in Nevada caring for 25 parrots. I could find no mention of her putting them to work as escorts but this is Nevada the home of legalized prostitution so who knows.
When “my body, my choice” becomes a rallying cry, don’t get upset when some people make choices you don’t like and that those choices fall outside of abortion. If a woman chooses to use her body as a product and to engage in voluntary transactions with other adults, then it’s going to happen. It’s a bit disingenuous to engage human trafficking with escorts who choose a certain line of work, much as the question of a disabled person is a straw man argument regarding prostitution itself.
Women, however, do have a right to be protected from exploitation and harm. Of course, they have such a right and it includes protection from the various moral busybodies who think they know best how others should live. Banning things never makes those things go away, nor does it make them less dangerous.
“A message to men: sex is not a human right”
Message to Bindel: if you actually listened to any rather than hectoring them, you would know that men know this already.
Some women are forced into prostitution; some women are raped. This is nothing whatsoever to do with men’s perception of the human rights of men. It is simply bad, criminal behavior.
Actually now I have thought about it, sex is a human right.
Just as eating, breathing, and thinking are human rights. Its just that its a human right that requires a consenting second party, well sex with another human does anyway…. outside of that it becomes a very grey area.
I find this ruling outrageous. If this man wants a sexual partner, then he should be supported to find opportunities to meet people and form relationships. Lots of people with autism, learning disabilities and other conditions manage to do this so it shouldn’t be a barrier in itself.
But if they are also saying his disability makes him unable to behave and relate to others in a safe way then it’s even more horrifying that they are willing to put a woman in this position simply because she is being paid.
I just hope this decision is overturned, what a terrible precedent it will put in place if not!
I was under the impression that prostition is pretty much illegal anyway (paying a prostitute is illegal, being one is not). Please correct me if I’m wrong – I must admit its not a topic I’m fully upto speed with.
So I’m confused by this ruling in the first place, as it seems to be incompatible with other laws,
On so many levels this needs to be overturned.
Paying a prostitute is NOT illegal in the UK. See https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/prostitution-and-exploitation-prostitution
“It is not illegal to sell sex at a brothel provided the sex worker is not involved in management or control of the brothel. A house occupied by one woman and used by her alone for prostitution, is not a brothel”
If prostitution is legal, and both parties legally able to consent, then I would think each side has the right to x in exchange for y.
And they would presumably refuse if the client is too challenging?The difficulty here seems that it is the client’s carers who are the ones consenting on their behalf?
Yes, the legality of the contract would, I presume, depend on the full and proper consent of all parties. Whether the carers could act with some sort of Power of Attorney I have no idea. “(All)Men … something bad …” just gets a little tiresome.
sex robots sound a better idea,then nobody can get hurt-well until the robot gets its own lawyer & starts suing
Recall the (distasteful) case of attempts to import sex-dolls that look like children. Apparently, this broke some laws.
No, they are not consenting on behalf of the prostitute.
The client is the disabled person.Their carers are trying to get a service for them. Apart from the illegal dolls I presume full-size ones will become available to service this need and if the client is rather aggressive only components get hurt .
Looked it up on internet-seems to be very big business , costs a few thousand , so would ‘pay for themselves ‘ quite quickly and no problem with disease etc from a real person. Will probably put the lower end-who are not all selfless creatures like something from Les Miserables-out of business. The upper end , expensive escorts , drawn from actors etc ( probably a few journalists) would continue.
Somewhat unfortunate timing for such a headline (“A message to men: sex is not a human right“) on the day when the details of the murder of Phoenix Netts were published. Her murderer was a woman (a sex worker herself) who pestered Netts for sex for weeks before murdering her because she “couldn’t cope well with perceived rejection”. The murderer immigrated from the Caribbean to England at the age of 7 (in 2000 or so), her mother immigrated later to accompany the child. Thank you Tony Blair.
I don’t expect the feminist sisterhood to organise a vigil for Phoenix Netts, that would be racist. Or misogynist. Or something.
Yes I noticed the huge inconsistency also.
The mantra from Feminists could be “some ( women’s) lives matter”.
93% of murders in the UK are committed by men. What’s your point?
and 73% of homicide victims are men. What’s your point?
GLWT, as the young people say.
The fact that it has been ubiquitous throughout human history should tell you that like religion, prostitution will always, always arise. A big part of what keeps it going is that there will always be women who want to sell it, and men who want to buy it. If you think you can ever abolish that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Ah but this is Julie Bindel, the mere entirety of human history, indeed, human nature itself, is no boundary to her quest for lesbianic utopia. Remember, men are evil and barely deserve to live in her book, let alone get laid.
Yeah Aaron, I believe everyone detected the bitterness in her “article”. And as pointed out by many above, she insists in selling the old misandric trope of men=bad, woman=saint.
I don’t know about you, but I would love to see Unherd publish a counterpoint article written by an honest, reasonable woman expressing a more balanced perception of the reality of male x female dynamics. Eleanor (an older commenter on another thread) expressed such views a few days ago, and it was so good to remember that not all women are like Julie Bindel!
Well it has not been ubiquitous. But then child labour has been, as well as killing for hire, or what ever straw man you wish to wave around.
PLEASE, WOMAN POSTERS HERE: would you do prostitution for money with strange men, and I am sure many will be strange indeed. Would you think it fine if your daughter did? because as a man I find the answer so obvious. Prostitution is purely debasing yourself. If that is fine then morality has come a long way down.
As a man I would NEVER demean myself for money, but you say women can do it with no issues. Or do you think it not demeaning to let yourself be used sexually by strange men? My guess is prostitution destroys one inside, I doubt a normal woman can be a prostitute and not be emotionally scarred. Would this not be true for you? My feel is people are so into the liberal kool-aid they think sex for money is fine (for other women, but not them or their family).
Probably those who do it without a qualm are on the sociopath spectrum.
Your guess. Correct.
MOST women, MOST men wouldn’t choose to have sex for money. But some do!
Personally I couldn’t perform an autopsy, or even for that matter work in a funeral home. I couldn’t do that work day in, day out and be mentally healthy I would be destroyed inside – as you say – but the people who do it are quite often really well rounded compasinate people.
Not all prostitutes do it voluntarily, some are flat out forced to do it, other ‘choose’ it as a last resort, some do it off and on to get just a bit of extra cash.
I wouldn’t be happy if anyone in my family was prostitue (male or female). But then again I wouldn;t be happy if they were a military sniper, or worked in weapons technology either- but if they did, if they wanted to, if they were ok with it, then I would have to accept it.
You feel it is demeaning? This is not necessarily the case – and for those of us who choose to do this (ie no pimps or drug addiction) it is not demeaning at all. I don’t have children but if I did I would have no problem with my daughter/son making an informed choice to sell sexual services.
Hmm, if you are doing paid work out of the necessity to make a living, then you are demeaning yourself for money. Alternatively, if you are “living off your investments”, then you are demeaning somebody else for money.
Murder, war, rape, infanticide are all “ubiquitous throughout human history“. Doesn’t mean they should all be legal, or socially acceptable.
I am generally very much of the view that a person should be free to do what they want with their own body, but I a very skeptical of the claims made here that a majority of women in the sex industry are making a completely free, empowered decision to do so – even though I accept that many may be.
In other words, you believe that some women like being sex workers, while others don’t.
You’re right. But isn’t that true of every profession?
You could say exactly the same thing about most people working in low paid low status jobs – like supermarkets or call centres. We do it because we have to live. If we have a choice, we choose the least unpleasant job that pays the most.
I find the implication in the title that lots of men think that access to sex is a human right quite misandrist.
Julie is far more guilty of stereotyping (and hating the opposite sex) than any of her critics, as far as I can see.
Which raises the question, why do women never get cancelled for sexism?
Because they are a protected class thanks to our gynocentric society
You’ve got it, Mark. Now just imagine the genders swapped. If an article were to sport a shameless misogynistic statement as title, do you think Unherd would even publish it? Do you detect just how far the “different rules for different genders” has become commonplace?
Oh I’m well aware of the double standards at play.
I think I agree with you. This highlights the problems of pursuing the ideal of ‘rights’ beyond that of life and liberty as Roger Scruton pointed out. Whose ‘right’ takes precedence?
The Author is a vehement supporter of abortion. In a tweet in February last year she wrote: “Absolute b..stards. Anti-abortion activists (NOT pro-life, please do not call them that) are the scourge of any society.”
As an abortion advocate she castigates those that would put restrictions on women’s bodily autonomy when it comes to their free choice to destroy a growing human life within them.
Yet here she is herself as an abolitionist, demanding that that the criminal law should remove women’s bodily autonomy to engage in sex as part of a consensual financial transaction. The Author would heartily cheer creating criminal sanctions to punish women exercising that part of their right to bodily autonomy.
There is something rather perverse in the reasoning of someone who curses those who would want the law to restrict or prevent a woman destroying life, while at the same time calling for the law to criminalize women having sex for financial reward.
Anti-abortion advocates would restrict women’s rights because they are convinced they know what is better for them than they do. The Author would similarly restrict women’s rights because she too thinks she knows better than women engaging in prostitution. Why the Author regards herself as different from the anti-abortionists she decries is beyond me.
The hypocrisy of feminists like Bindell is not news.
“Anti-abortion advocates would restrict women’s rights because they are convinced they know what is better for them than they do.”
I am pro life and yes I do believe it is better for a woman’s long term mental health not to kill her child. However, the main reason I believe that most people are pro life is because they believe that an unborn child has rights and deserves protection. Two of our children were still born. I held both these children for a while, I assure you that they were small but perfectly formed.
I don’t think this case is best characterised as being about whether it is a woman’s right to sell sex, it’s about whether it is a man’s right to buy it. The man is the subject here
It’s about both. Julie is annoyed that a man is planning to commit a crime: “getting laid while unsexy”. I find prostitution a bit gross but really, I’m more worried for the poor carer(s). Some little Filipina maybe, calling up a brothel, “hello, yes, my client want pretty girl please”. It would hilarious to watch but the poor thing might feel a tad uncomfortable in her new role as procurer.
I don’t think it’s about sexiness, it’s about whether this is true concent or coersion of a potentially vulnerable person. It wouldn’t be an issue if the man were to find a willing sexual partner in the normal way- always an option.
I agree, it absolutely could put care workers in an uncomfortable position
You’re right, Bindel hates men no matter how appealing they are. But what is normal these days anyway? Prostitution is very normal for a subset of men. Not sure carers should have to facilitate however.
I don’t understand why there is this new idea that if someone doesn’t agree with you ideologically they must hate you. Disagreeing that sex is an absolute right doesn’t imply hatred.
Then you failed to read the article’s title, Laura – have you noticed a specific gender amongst the words?
You are bending over backwards to avoid admitting the misandry and hatred smeared all over Bindel’s “article”.
It’s a subset of men as you put it, men who don’t think and act this way needn’t see themselves in it
By your logic, I can state that every woman is a disgrace to humanity, and you should not take offense on the premise that “you don’t act in this way and thus needn’t see yourself as such”.
You stopped making sense a few posts ago…
Not playing Laura. Julie’s hatred pours into everything she writes and makes her unable to reasonably assess modern ethical quandaries. The emphasis of her article is clear, she opposes prostitution on very dubious grounds as a radical feminist, while completely ignoring the more obvious problems with carer-procurement of floozies.
It used to be the case that men viewed women as helpless little creatures in need of male protection. Feminists challenged this and said that women were just as tough and capable as men.
For some reason, feminists now argue that women are helpless little creatures in need of protection. The only difference is that they think it is feminists who need to do the protecting, not men.
It is the patriarchy that protects them.
Neither men nor women have a right to sex. I understand the judgenment as being that a disabled person has no less a right to seek sex than does an able bodied person. He is not seeking anything illegal and, as such, his carers, in order not to unjustly discimate against him, are required to assist him in a lawful pursuit.
I agree with this, very much; yet, Ms Bindel, with an overarching weariness.
We have now had 60 years of nonstop haranguing by all species of feminists about the rights of women. It is 24/7 and ceaseless in aggrieved upbraiding.
It is a very important theme; but is it the case that all women are helpless victims and all men are actually or potentially ruthless predators?
If not, does it never occur to any of the proponents of women’s rights that (say) once in every half century we might usefully have a national colloquy or sermon or even just one rant on the subject of Men’s Rights?
I think if the sexes were reversed here it would be equally unacceptable. Women don’t have a right to sex either, and men have a right not to be exploited or coerced into sex.
But it does tend to be heavily gendered in terms of who is buying and who is providing, so it there is a feminist angle to this debate, as well as it being a general debate about what is really a need and how this might conflict with the rights of others.
Men’s rights isn’t the focus of feminism. Very few feminists would want to deny a man his legitimate rights, but discussion about this would by definition fall outside of the remit of feminism.
But if feminism is about gender equality, then shouldn’t they be concerned about equality regardless of gender?
My understanding is that feminism is about women’s liberation from male dominance in society, not simply equality within the status quo
For example equality could mean more men being prostituted and more women acting as pimps and buyers so that there were even numbers on both sides. But that isn’t the goal, it’s about working towards abolition
Specifically pursuing men’s causes would be the task of a different movement
“Very few feminists would want to deny a man his legitimate rights,”
I learned long ago that the feminist anger was not directed at me. It was women like my wife they hated. Women who had given up lucrative careers to build a home and raise a family with a husband. You see she had left the fight, deserted the field and so they used their new found power to make the lives of women like my wife as difficult as they possibly could. Feminists only see the world though their own factory made glasses. They hate women who make different choices and don’t do as they are told.
I’m sorry to hear your wife has been treated badly. I think it is a very very good thing that women can now be involved in the world of work in ways that may have been limited in even the fairly recent past. But I do wonder if an unintended consequence is that now we have a model were in a lot of cases were two incomes is the default. This can make it harder for partnerships where this isn’t the case, whether that is through judgement by others or financial demands
I struggle to think of any situations where women’s rights and men’s rights are incompatible. If either ‘side’ feels they are then I tend to think they are perceiving something as a right that isn’t. Which brings us back to the case in question
Laura, I suspect you chose to ignore the feminist narrative altogether. If you mean what you wrote above, you’ll find that your conception of rights is radically at odds with that narrative.
I don’t know, if I heard of an example I’d definitely be willing to consider it. The closest one I can think of is the case of a pregnancy where the mother and father have different views on whether it should be terminated. I think the decision ultimately has to be with the woman as it physically affects her more but I can see it would be very difficult for the father too.
There you go – woman first. It took a while, but you eventually showed your colours. So for the mother, you “feel” it is an unassailable right, whereas the father must only deal with it being “very dufficult”! Ever wondered what your own father would tell you about your concept of fairness on this one?
Note the fabulous logic here. Bindel has the well-defended right not to be a prostitute. Women have the right to be one. Her demand that their rights are denied is construed as “the rights of women are being ignored” when all that is being ignored is Bindel.
Well put. Feminists seem to grow more shrill the more they are ignored. I wonder whether the basic motivation for their constant bullying is just a narcisistic need for attention?
In a previous post (currently top of page), I made a point about Bindell’s grammar. I see from several responses that some people did not understand the point I was attempting to make. Because it is an important issue, I would like to expand upon my reasoning.
The reason I pointed out that Bindell’s use of the pronoun “their” is incorrect was not merely to nitpick her English, but because the left has now decided that language is a site of contestation over which they need to exercise control. It is a means by which culture can be shaped to meet their ideological purpose, rather like the way the Inner Party in 1984 creates Newspeak to manipulate the proles.
Notice, for example, the way men are almost always referred to as “males”, while females are always “women”, as in women lawyers. The intent seems to be to diminish the humanity of men by using a term that can be used for animals.
Or take the term “systemic sexism”. It was coined deliberately to ensure that women could never be accused of sexism for their attitudes towards men. To be true sexism, the argument goes, it must be “systemic”. Then the further assertion is made that prejudice against men is merely “personal”, not “systemic”. So by definition, women can’t be sexist- only men can be. So the topic of female sexism is off the table, never open for discussion.
There are many other examples, but these might begin to respond to those who failed to understand my aversion to Bindell’s use of a word which erases men’s gender by pretending it doesn’t exist. The left have been manipulating the public this way for years.
I got it John, and pedantry is not a seriousness insult, it’s a legitimate response to petty and vindictive men malevolence of progressives – hoist them on their own petard. Not that they care….
I say nothing of the specific case of the disabled man, but on the general point, Julie Bindel has, as usual, got it diametrically wrong. Client criminalisation has been disastrous, decriminalisation successful, wherever either has been tried. See the English Collective of Prostitutes’ excellent report: https://prostitutescollective.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Online-Symposium-Report.pdf.
The question of whether or not it would be beneficial to abolish prostitution (and I say it wouldn’t), as Bindel says she wants, is pointless and meaningless. It’s like asking if it would be beneficial to abolish crime (and no, I am not saying prostitution should be regarded as crime). It can’t be done, at any rate in any reasonably free, open society. Prostitution has wherever and whenever it was permitted or at any rate tolerated, and all efforts to abolish it are futile. It might be possible in a grossly repressive society like North Korea (though even that is unlikely), but I hope Bindel wouldn’t want that.
There is a common myth that no normal woman enters prostitution (or any aspect of the sex industry – porn, etc.) voluntarily, and that any who do must either be doing it involuntarily or be in some way abnormal. Jon Redman’s brother’s experience adds to the overwhelming evidence that this is not true. This is related to the grossly offensive assumption, apparently held by people like Bindel, that all such women are pathetic, mindless creatures, utterly incapable of speaking for or deciding anything for themselves, who must be “saved” by those who know better. As Mark Preston nicely puts it, women have the right to choose – provided they choose what feminists want.
Bindel hates pretty women who (whom?) men seek out, because she was never pretty herself (her admission, I’m not just being mean). She also hates men, and heterosexuality by logical implication. She chose lesbianism in her teens (her words, not mine) as a statement of feminism. There isn’t any reason on earth to take Bindel seriously on any matters pertaining to men/women/sexuality. My own wife thinks she’s a bit sad. But then, my wife is oppressed presumably.
“Whom” is correct. It is the object of the verb “seek”. As a quick trick, try substituting another object case pronoun. Men seek “them”, not “they”.
Liberalism is a disease an antibiotic will not cure.
Not a very good article, with a misleading title. The autho is clearly an appaling sexist. I hope nobody paid her money for her openly sexist rant.
Morally presumptive title. Can I crawl from under my male rock with permission to be condescended to, oh holy female goddess?
“Your body, Julie’s choice” has quite the ring to it.
I see she is also pretending male prostitutes don’t exist, as usual. Can’t have that complicating the narrative.
I wonder if the situation, as suggested above, is as it was presented to the judge ?
Rather than, should carers “help” their client to engage in sexual gymnastics with a prostitute, maybe the argument was actually, should carers actively try to frustrate, subtly or otherwise, their clients expressed wishes, if they don’t agree with those wishes ? The rights and wrongs of prostitution are, surely, a different question.
My understanding is that at this point the case was purely about whether it would be legal to do this. I assume there will be a later case about whether it is in the man’s best interests and those of other parties
I agree. The problem is, this goes against almost the whole of modern society, which holds that having a fulfilling sex life is necessary to human flourishing and than trying to “repress your urges” leads, at best, to unhappiness and self-hatred, and worst cause you to become a pervert or rapist. When you hold *that* view, it becomes very difficult to argue that sex isn’t actually a human right.
I’d say it is a biological imperative for males to seek sex and it is a female biological imperative to either grant sex or withhold sex. In neither case is it a right per se.
Of course women sometimes seek sex as well, but are less likely to for several reasons. One is that the women are less likely to have to seek sex in order to have it. Her main concern by nature is to try to make sure that the sex she agrees to has adequate enough benefits for her and any resultant offspring to offset the risk. Sometimes the search for the benefits will cause a woman to seek sex from a powerful male in the hope that she can form a bond and thus gain the security and protection that she is biologically driven to seek.
If we MUST describe it as a right I would say that any human have a right to SEEK and also a right to either grant or deny sexual permission from any and all seekers.
The judge’s ruling is bizarre. But Bidel’s framing is also odd. “A message to men” is a generalisation that would be sexist if directed at women. Does Bidel think men in general agree with this, or is it just poor phrasing? After all, she’s criticising a female writer too. And because the person in the court case is disabled, she could have written, “A message to people with disabilities”. But it’s obvious why that would be wrong.
This also raises the question of what’s a right and what isn’t. Classical liberalism has an answer: do what you want so long as you don’t violate the equal rights of others. That’s “negative rights”. Progressives promote positive rights—the right to make people give you stuff (often tax payer funded this or that). But where does that stop? There’s no clear answer. So it’s no surprise that a crackpot judge would fabricate a right to sex.
Sorry Ms Bindell but I do not agree with you. Many women in the sex/porn industry are there because they want to be – the money is extremely good and does not necessarily mean having sex. Women’s rights mean women have the right to choose what they want to do with their bodies – who are you to tell them they cannot make that choice? I have some experience in this area myself and what I did was very well paid and totally consensual – I have serious issues with women who call themselves feminists but try to remove women’s right to choose what they do with their bodies. Your holier than thou take on this makes me feel that you do not understand in any way, shape or form – you are trying to take away a woman’s choice to do what she wants to do with her own body!
“my position on prostitution — namely that it should be abolished and that women be supported to exit the sex trade.”
Totally agree!
“my position on prostitution — namely that it should be abolished and that women be supported to exit the sex trade.”
Totally agree!
I can’t help but feel this story is not new and that I have heard it all before.
Julie, you are correct.
How much is it now, been a while.
Sex is a currency of barter – what you get in return varies according to who/why/where/when. eg husband/wife, prostitute/punter, club goer/club goer etc etc
It is in fact, your right to get what you have paid for. If an adult woman (or man for that matter) contracts for services with someone, isn’t that their business and not that of uninvolved busybodies?
It’s a curious headline to use “sex is not a human right” for an article in which the author specifically wants to get rid of the Sex Market, while ignoring all other means of negotiating a Natural Urge. Marriage, for instance, is a contract that actually requires the partners to be available for sex with each other: Yes, a woman has the right to say no, at any instance; but a married woman has the contractual obligation to say Yes *sometimes* – otherwise the “exclusive union” at the heart of the contract fails, and the marriage is nullifiable. By the way a man also has the right say no, but the obligation to say yes sometimes. Failure to get an erection adds some barriers, but not invariably insuperable ones).
Why is Unherd published,Anti-Male bull**** from Bindell?…Her arguments are Old ….
What a ridiculous column. The women in the sex trade are often there by choice.
A message to Julie.
Women have fought for the right to sell their bodies. Feminists have proclaimed that prostitutes are now very respectable professionals plying a highly skilled trade. Who are you to moralise against your sisterhood?
And for your information I have never had any sexual interaction with a prostitute. I would never contemplate taking a disabled person to see one for sex. However, whilst I know some prostitutes end up that way due to unfortunate upbringings, others just like the money and others still like the money and the sex. Am I to tell any of them what they can and can not do? No. For according to feminist doctrine, that would make them victims of my self aggrandizing misogyny. So what does this say about Julie?