Sex Workers - most wretched girls and women in society

[susi]

just a link to an article around the challenge......

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/legalize-prostitution-are-we-nuts/article12753194/

Why are feminists and other progressive types so enthusiastic about legalizing prostitution? It baffles me. Prostitution is the most exploitative, degrading work on Earth. Despite those stories about high-class call girls, its practitioners are overwhelmingly the most wretched girls and women in society. Prostitution turns women into lumps of meat that are bought and sold for the sexual gratification of men. If you legalize it, you will probably get more. Please explain how that can be a good thing.

click the link for the completel article...if you can stomach it.....

 

[VanessaofBC]

HAHA!!!

Even the people who left comments ripped that womans article to shreds!!!!

Not that the article is NOT important. But the comments are better.

 

[HankQuinlan]

Margaret Wente is a delusional waste of space, not matter what topic she decides to write about. Most of the comments attached to that article disagree with her strongly, so there's that... I suspect she is kept on salary by the Globe because everyone loves to hate her.

Still, it is more proof that no matter what evidence and common sense is presented, many minds are not going to be changed, and she does represent a large number of people in our society.

 

[UhOh]

She says sexual gratification like it a bad thing.

 

[yazoo]

One of my favourite comments came from someone called act21 who stated:

There are lots of kinds of prostitution Margaret. There's the physical kind, and there's the ideological kind.
Have a nice day at the Globe.

Some other interesting comments:

How is it we feel that in a drug transaction, the buyer is exploited for his need, but when we are talking about prostitution, the buyer becomes the exploiter?

Is this newspaper still being edited?

Intelligent argument is not listing random unconnected facts that support what you believe. There needs to be some regard to context and the validity of the evidence. An example - saying legalizing prostitution is bad because 70% of Swedes favour a law that criminalizes being a John. This has almost no connection to her point.

There are good arguments for and against legalizing prostitution. Can the Globe and Mail either ask Ms Wente for a second draft or find someone more rigorous to make the case against legailzation.

 

[susi]

here's a great critic published in the NOW = toronto

http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/story.cfm?content=193201

Margaret Wente: still plying the world’s second oldest trade

Armed with no particular insight, or apparent knowledge of Canadian law whatsoever, the Globe’s banner moralist decided to write about prostitution this weekend

By John Semley

According to Margaret Wente, Terri-Jean Bedford isn't a real sex worker. This and more!

Sex work, it’s often claimed, is the world’s oldest profession. In this weekend’s Globe & Mail, paid typist and self-confessed plagiarist Margaret Wente made a strong case for hackish moral panicking being the world’s second oldest.

In her latest column, goadingly titled, Legal Prostitution? Are We Nuts? , Wente brings her swollen puritanism to bear on the current Supreme Court case arguing in favour of legalizing indoor prostitution. Calling prostitution, “the most exploitative, degrading work on Earth*” Wente opposes the “feminists and other progressive types” (including the “enlightened classes”) who are endeavoring to make it less exploitative and degrading.

The misleadingly gaping, likely intentional, hole at the centre of Wente’s argumentation is large enough to drive and eighteen-wheeler through. What she doesn’t acknowledge – if she even realizes – is that prostitution is already legal in Canada. So, yes, by Wente’s standard, we are, legally, nuts.

What’s illegal, in one of those Catch-22 type deals that seems to typify too much of lawmaking, is pretty much everything surrounding the act of having sex for money. According to the Canadian Criminal Code what you can’t do is communicate for the purposes of prostitution, “live on the avails” of prostitution, or own, manage, lease, or be found in a “bawdy house.” It’s this sort of patently absurd loophole, which reads like something out of a piece of 50 year-old dystopian fiction, that the current Supreme Court Challenge is trying to close up.

 

[Smilf]

Wow she's a real treat ain't she?

Awesome, I'm nuts, cool, thanks for the free diagnosis! Save me some cash from going to see a shrink, because this lifestyle has devastated me so much.

Now who can I sue for that? bahahaha!

 

[PlayfulAlex]

here's a great critic published in the NOW = toronto

http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/story.cfm?content=193201

Margaret Wente: still plying the world’s second oldest trade

Armed with no particular insight, or apparent knowledge of Canadian law whatsoever, the Globe’s banner moralist decided to write about prostitution this weekend

By John Semley

According to Margaret Wente, Terri-Jean Bedford isn't a real sex worker. This and more!

Sex work, it’s often claimed, is the world’s oldest profession. In this weekend’s Globe & Mail, paid typist and self-confessed plagiarist Margaret Wente made a strong case for hackish moral panicking being the world’s second oldest.

In her latest column, goadingly titled, Legal Prostitution? Are We Nuts? , Wente brings her swollen puritanism to bear on the current Supreme Court case arguing in favour of legalizing indoor prostitution. Calling prostitution, “the most exploitative, degrading work on Earth*” Wente opposes the “feminists and other progressive types” (including the “enlightened classes”) who are endeavoring to make it less exploitative and degrading.

The misleadingly gaping, likely intentional, hole at the centre of Wente’s argumentation is large enough to drive an eighteen-wheeler through. What she doesn’t acknowledge – if she even realizes – is that prostitution is already legal in Canada. So, yes, by Wente’s standard, we are, legally, nuts.

What’s illegal, in one of those Catch-22 type deals that seems to typify too much of lawmaking, is pretty much everything surrounding the act of having sex for money. According to the Canadian Criminal Code what you can’t do is communicate for the purposes of prostitution, “live on the avails” of prostitution, or own, manage, lease, or be found in a “bawdy house.” It’s this sort of patently absurd loophole, which reads like something out of a piece of 50 year-old dystopian fiction, that the current Supreme Court Challenge is trying to close up.

Fixed that for ya!

You're welcome!

Editing Nazi