|
McDragon posted:What, Conservative? Conservatives would more usually be described as cold and shallow. Also, don't steal my jokes.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2014 22:15 |
|
|
# ? Jun 9, 2024 09:38 |
|
I don't know a lot about this topic so I'd appreciate it if you could help me out with grasping a couple of points. Belle de Jour's linked article uses statistics to show that criminalizing purchase only has led to the rise of various negative effects on sex workers in Sweden. This is all fair enough, but it doesn't explain what about this is unique to the law, or consider how changing its application could resolve those problems. The two main points she suggests (eventually) are that a) other vital services for sex workers are being neglected in order to uphold the ban, and b) it stigmatizes sex work as a trade. The first point is sound, but why can't the ban simply be implemented more effectively by allocating more resources towards legal protection and HIV outreach at the same time? It's just assumed that any country that adopts the Swedish model will throw its hands up and say "welp we've done all we can, no use making a real effort to ensure sex worker safety outside of this ban". It's certainly worth questioning whether it's worth spending more on that approach when decriminalization has proved cost-effective and useful. I just find it odd that the post doesn't address what is obviously going to be the rebuttal from supporters of the ban ("OK, we'll keep the ban AND spend more money on sex worker safety"). Second one requires showing that stigmatizing buyers necessarily stigmatizes sellers. Whether it is a failure or otherwise, the obvious intent of the purchase ban's supporters is to stigmatize buyers while not affecting public opinion of sex workers themselves. It is based on a reasoning for stigmatizing johns that is distinct from the traditional "promiscuity and sex outside marriage is dirty and wrong and therefore so is everyone involved" idea. Theoretically, it should be as viable as demonizing one participant in any other type of economic transaction as inherently exploitative, which we do in this thread all the time ("landlords, capitalists, usurers, etc. are bastards"). I'm not sure if the argument is "but the general public can't grasp the difference between this argument and the traditional reasons for stigmatizing sex work", suggesting that such an approach can never be fully extricated from prudery, or if it's something else like "this approach makes johns more violent" (which Belle de Jour seemed to hint at but never explain). Can you clarify? I mean I can certainly accept the merits of an argument that johns shouldn't be stigmatized for other reasons, but the specific reason given is always that it harms sex workers no matter what.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2014 22:16 |
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Conservatives would more usually be described as cold and shallow. If only this were true about Thatcher's grave.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2014 22:29 |
|
Jedit posted:If only this were true about Thatcher's grave. Any grave of Thatcher's is cold and shallow compared to how deep I would dig to make sure she never climbed out screeching "FREEEEE MARKETS" like a demented banshie.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2014 23:06 |
|
schadenfraud posted:Is this why it all went kind of quiet on the "let's crack down on payday loans" front? Because their mates at the big banks decided to engage in this fantastic wheeze as well? I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of big banks and investment funds behind people like Wonga - the capital has to come from somewhere, and it offers fabulous rates of return. Weldon Pemberton posted:Second one requires showing that stigmatizing buyers necessarily stigmatizes sellers. Whether it is a failure or otherwise, the obvious intent of the purchase ban's supporters is to stigmatize buyers while not affecting public opinion of sex workers themselves. It is based on a reasoning for stigmatizing johns that is distinct from the traditional "promiscuity and sex outside marriage is dirty and wrong and therefore so is everyone involved" idea. Theoretically, it should be as viable as demonizing one participant in any other type of economic transaction as inherently exploitative, which we do in this thread all the time ("landlords, capitalists, usurers, etc. are bastards"). I'm not sure if the argument is "but the general public can't grasp the difference between this argument and the traditional reasons for stigmatizing sex work", suggesting that such an approach can never be fully extricated from prudery, or if it's something else like "this approach makes johns more violent" (which Belle de Jour seemed to hint at but never explain). Can you clarify? I mean I can certainly accept the merits of an argument that johns shouldn't be stigmatized for other reasons, but the specific reason given is always that it harms sex workers no matter what. I don't know about the Nordic model specifically, but one of the arguments against criminalising buyers is that it makes them criminals. It's not so much a stigma as an actual punishment for those who are caught. So in effect, every sex worker is dealing with people who are willing to break the law, and who are fairly sure of their ability to stay anonymous. It keeps sex work underground and means it caters to more risky and dangerous people, and puts the sex workers themselves in danger. One argument I've heard is that in a fully legal situation, sure there's some social stigma, but in general people rely on discretion. It's normal to give contact details when calling an 'agency' to book someone for a hotel, knowing that in general if anything happens they'll know exactly where to find you. Whereas if it's illegal, you can never be sure who you're meeting, and what else they're willing to do. It means the people who use sex workers are all people who've crossed a serious line. It also means there's still a market for criminal gangs to 'supply their services', and it's that kind of profitable exploitation and much much worse that this kind of legislation is meant to be working against. If it's still a criminal act, that underground will still flourish If anyone wants their heart breaking (and that's a warning), read something like this: http://www.oneangrygirl.net/nextdoor.html
|
# ? Apr 13, 2014 23:36 |
|
Fluo posted:So General China is literally the prolier than thou manchild? No, I have relinquished my prolier than thou title, what with me living in a posh house that was never owned by the council. Hows your mental health and alcoholism?
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 00:03 |
|
namesake posted:Can't we all just get together and overthrow capitalism already
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 00:17 |
|
This paper by Ann Jordan is pretty good too on the subject of the Nordic model:quote:The law focuses on increasing the social stigma against buyers, as well as sellers, of sex. Although it is constructed upon the theory that sex workers are passive ‘victims’, in practice, it is intended to increase stigma and discrimination against the sex workers who refuse or are unable to quit selling sex. quote:Additionally, the Swedish government and its feminist supporters are using the law to advocate for increased social stigma and support for the patriarchal separation of women into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ categories. The feminist supporters have positioned themselves as ‘good’ women who have the right to define ‘gender equality’ and appropriate sexual quote:In order to claim success, the Swedish government must be able to present reliable evidence that the law actually reduced the number of men who purchase sex, the number of women who sell sex and the number of people who are trafficked into forced prostitution. A close examination of government reports and other research reveals that Sweden’s claims of success are not supported by any reliable evidence. Nonetheless, the government’s latest report concludes that the law “has had the intended effect and is an important instrument in preventing and combating prostitution” (Skarhed 2010, 11). quote:The report raises the possibility that some men behave differently as a result of the law. It cites a 2008 survey in which, “several of those [men] questioned” said the law caused them to stop or cut back on buying sex (Skarhed 2010, 32). The survey also reported that only 8% of the men said they had bought sex, as compared to 13.6% in 1996 (Skarhed 2010, 32). However, self-reports about one’s own socially- unacceptable behavior is not evidence of actual behavior. In fact, if the law has been successful in stigmatizing the purchase of sex as intended, then it is logical that men would want to avoid the stigma by claiming that they are no longer engaging in ‘bad sex’. quote:Sweden’s definition of ‘trafficking’ is consistent with the view that all sex workers are always victims. Under Swedish law, ‘trafficking’ includes “exploitation for casual sexual relations or in another way exploited for sexual purposes” (Swedish Penal Code, ch. 4). In other words, ‘trafficking’ means any prostitution involving third parties, such as a club, an assistant, a phone service or a brothel, even when there is no force, fraud or coercion. Thus, when the government claims there were 400 to quote:Although there is no reliable study on the issue, sex workers “express fear of increased violence, as well as an actual increase” (Dodillet and Östergren 2011, 23; see also Scoular 2010, 20; Hubbard 2008, 147; Norwegian Ministry 2004, 12-14; Östergren 2004, 2, 5). quote:Sex workers report that criminalization of clients in Sweden has reinforced and increased the social stigma about prostitution (Skarhed 2010, 34; Dodillet and Östergren 2011, 21). The law adopts traditional patriarchal images of innocent, sexually pure women – in need of rescue and protection – and bad women - social deviants who sell sex - who do not deserve society’s protection. The government and its supporters hope that, by using negative images to increase stigma of sex workers and their customers, public pressure will force them to conform (at least superficially) to the views of the majority. quote:Kulick reports that police harassment has increased: sex workers “can be forced to appear in court to provide testimony against the client” and must appear even if they refuse to testify. When “caught with a client, their belongings are searched and they may be frisked.” Their possessions – such as condoms - can be confiscated as evidence (Kulick 2000; see also Dodillet and Östergren 2011, 22; Danna 2007, 37). quote:In general, as sex workers move further underground, they have less access to health services and are less able to exchange information about risky clients, and health or other issues. Access to condoms and information about safe sex practices are essential to promote health among sex workers, clients and the general public.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 00:26 |
General China posted:No, I have relinquished my prolier than thou title, what with me living in a posh house that was never owned by the council. Seems abit harsh this. Completely fine for more then 2 years now and in moderation and finally got myself being a productive member of society from my knowledge of the latter. Thank you for asking I didn't know you cared. Fluo fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 03:15 |
|
General China posted:No, I have relinquished my prolier than thou title, what with me living in a posh house that was never owned by the council. loving hell, I hope that wasn't intended the way it came across!
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 07:07 |
|
Pesmerga posted:loving hell, I hope that wasn't intended the way it came across! No doubt it was. I don't understand why anybody gives him the time of day.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 10:27 |
|
General China posted:No, I have relinquished my prolier than thou title, what with me living in a posh house that was never owned by the council. You seem like a nice person I would like to meet and have a beer with. Oh no wait, that's Fluo. You just seem like a massive shithead.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 10:28 |
|
At least now he's revealed himself to be a massive hypocrite in addition to being a horrible belligerent bastard, maybe people will stop responding to his poo poo posts now?
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 10:30 |
|
schadenfraud posted:Was listening to Money Box on Radio 4 earlier. Barclays, it turns out, has joined the esteemed ranks of wonga and other payday loan types. Their new overdraft charges, which are now 75p per day are, if converted back into interest, something ridiculous like 26,000%pa. I don't doubt the shittiness of Barclays, but I'm not sure how you can convert a flat rate into a percentage?
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 11:05 |
|
How have you idiots not figured out that General China is really a Prince Charles alt-account?General China posted:What's the best way to catch and kill a pheasant that doesn't involve firearms? The things are a major pest in my new country abode, pulling up my garlic and onions. Got into trouble for shooting pheasants on his country property and wants an alternate method? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-caught-on-camera-shooting-364221 General China posted:I did once briefly own a Barbour jacket Barbour you say? http://www.greyfoxblog.com/2013/03/prince-charles-and-that-barbour.html General China posted:I am seriously considering buying a Landrover You know who else likes Landrovers?, that's right. HRH Prince Charles, due their support of rural Britain. http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Land-Rover-Prince-Charles-unite-help-UK-s-rural/story-20828495-detail/story.html General China posted:The Norfolk coast is a beautiful place to go on holiday You know who owns a country house on the Norfolk coast he occasionally goes to? - You guessed it. HRH Prince Charles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandringham_House General China posted:dont be including me in no middleclass guilt General China posted:This reminds me of the time my dad gave some food to an interdenominational church food bank. Dad donates to food banks and other charities?... General China posted:He winked at the bloke behind the counter and told him- make sure this goes to protestants only, I don't want my food being eaten by papists. ...and makes ridiculously un-pc 'jokes'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh spikenigma fucked around with this message at 11:27 on Apr 14, 2014 |
# ? Apr 14, 2014 11:23 |
|
Nevett posted:I don't doubt the shittiness of Barclays, but I'm not sure how you can convert a flat rate into a percentage? use the average that people actually have. or the maximum possible if you want to put the best possible spin on it i guess. 'something like' does tend to indicate it's not an exact figure.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 11:58 |
|
schadenfraud posted:Was listening to Money Box on Radio 4 earlier. Barclays, it turns out, has joined the esteemed ranks of wonga and other payday loan types. Their new overdraft charges, which are now 75p per day are, if converted back into interest, something ridiculous like 26,000%pa. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but my current overdraft charge is a flat £20 if I'm one penny over no matter if I make it positive ASAP. I'd be fairly happy with just 75p per day if I overdraft.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 12:52 |
|
Xachariah posted:Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but my current overdraft charge is a flat £20 if I'm one penny over no matter if I make it positive ASAP. I'd be fairly happy with just 75p per day if I overdraft. The 75 p per day will be for using your agreed overdraft, replacing the current interest rate of around 20%pa for using it. Barclays charges the flat £20 for going beyond your agreed overdraft and into your "personal reserve", or I guess for going overdrawn if you don't have an agreed overdraft.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 13:08 |
|
Thank heavens for my grandfathered-in fee-free (but not interest free) £400 overdraft. (e: For the first 4 years or so of being unable to work due to being disabled, I never left that overdraft except for a couple of days every month, so it was very handy) SybilVimes fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Apr 14, 2014 |
# ? Apr 14, 2014 13:09 |
|
It actually gets higher than 75p. If you go over £1000 on your planned Overdraft they charge £1.50 and if you go over £2000 they charge £3. To show how lovely a deal this is, if you were overdrawn by the maximum £1000 on the old system you'd pay £14.61 per month if we say a month is 30 days. If you're on the new system you pay £22.50. But if you're overdrawn by the minimum charge which is £16 then on the old system you'd pay £0.23 a month, while on the new system you still pay £22.50 which is a pretty loving steep increase. Basically there's no way this system benefits you at all, except for the extra £15 buffet zone before they start hitting you with fees or if you're the sort of person who'll go into an unplanned overdraft multiple times a month, in which case the fees will be less for you. But I can't imagine people make a habit of doing that. Fans fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Apr 14, 2014 |
# ? Apr 14, 2014 13:17 |
|
Mine is £6 a month flat fee plus interest if I use it.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 13:20 |
|
I feel like I need a Correctness check. I managed to pick up a very well paid tuition gig over these easter holidays, but I'm tutoring a bunch of private school kids. I dont know how to feel about this but the lady who was on the reception is the first person I've met in real life had who both pronounced "What" with two "h"'s and uses "What?" as punctuation on the end of a sentence. Had to actively bite my tongue instead of pulling a Vimes and replying with "When?" on the end of my own sentences. On the other hand, doing this job means that I'm helping these kids out and I get to pay my own uni tuition fees this year.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 13:37 |
|
Zero Gravitas posted:I feel like I need a Correctness check. Subtly indoctrinate them in correct thought.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 13:47 |
|
Zero Gravitas posted:I feel like I need a Correctness check. If it really bothers you spend a couple of hours a week tutoring kids from the non private school for free. I was thinking about looking for a tutor to help my kid pass his maths higher but couldn't have afforded it. Someone offering to do it for free would have been awesome and could potentially make a massive difference. But realistically you're not doing anything wrong - it's not like refusing to do it is going to bring down the class system.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 13:54 |
|
Zero Gravitas posted:tutoring a bunch of private school kids Here's your chance to undo all the ideological poo poo heaped on them at school and heap some ideological poo poo of your own
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 13:56 |
|
Why not work like an adult and worry about your ideological soul when you're in a better financial position?
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 14:03 |
|
Total Meatlove posted:worry about your ideological soul when you're in a better financial position? Because people who think about what's the best thing to do only ever have selfish purity as a motive, you see.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 15:17 |
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:If it really bothers you spend a couple of hours a week tutoring kids from the non private school for free. I was thinking about looking for a tutor to help my kid pass his maths higher but couldn't have afforded it. Someone offering to do it for free would have been awesome and could potentially make a massive difference. This is pretty much what my company does. We are an online marketplace for tutors, and encourage donations when people buy through us. The donations go towards our charity foundation which places tutors into under-privileged schools to work with pupils who have been picked out as the ones who will benefit most from this extra attention. Also, not all tutors are that expensive. We have a range from about £20/hour through to the high end (£100+). Most of them would also consider giving discounted lessons if you buy more than a handful of hours.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 15:40 |
|
Total Meatlove posted:Why not work like an adult and worry about your ideological soul when you're in a better financial position? Because thats how Capitalism gets everyone hooked in, then its too late.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 17:43 |
|
Touchdown Boy posted:Because thats how Capitalism gets everyone hooked in, then its too late. Until we live in Full Communism Utopia, unless one wants to be homeless and starving to death, one MUST participate in Capitalism, to have any kind of reliable quality of life. Gyro Zeppeli fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Apr 14, 2014 |
# ? Apr 14, 2014 18:45 |
|
More London property bubble excitement:The Guardian posted:Homeowners raising average asking price in London by 7% a month Metrication fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Apr 14, 2014 |
# ? Apr 14, 2014 18:50 |
|
Don't forget we live in a Britain where a pair of estate agents are two of our most-loved TV presenters
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 18:59 |
|
baka kaba posted:Don't forget we live in a Britain where a pair of estate agents are two of our most-loved TV presenters Thats only because we pruriently wonder if they are shagging.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 19:02 |
|
baka kaba posted:Don't forget we live in a Britain where a pair of estate agents are two of our most-loved TV presenters
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 19:12 |
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:
Phil regularly lets out a bijou living space with high ceilings and entertainment furnishings e- Jimbo Wales posted:Phil Spencer was the original founder of Garrington Home Finders Ltd, a property search company he created in 1996. He is an active property investor and landlord. He is director and shareholder of Raise The Roof Productions, the largest independent production company in Scotland and one of Channel 4's biggest suppliers of program content. Well that explains a lot baka kaba fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Apr 14, 2014 |
# ? Apr 14, 2014 19:18 |
|
baka kaba posted:Phil regularly lets out a bijou living space with high ceilings and entertainment furnishings
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 19:39 |
|
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 19:45 |
|
Fluo posted:Seems abit harsh this. Yeah, you are right and I was very out of order. It was crass and insensitive. You have my apologies.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 20:18 |
|
I wonder when the press are going to stop talking about 'fears' of a housing bubble and acknowledge that we are in fact in one and have been for some time.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 21:04 |
|
|
# ? Jun 9, 2024 09:38 |
|
They're only certain it's a bubble after its burst.
|
# ? Apr 14, 2014 21:18 |