In all the heated debate of the last few days this post by Mark Cowling seems to have been overlooked.
I think he actually asks some really interesting questions, so I hope Mark doesn’t mind, but I’m giving him a thread of his own:
I am an academic writing a book about a variety of sexual issues, with the general theme that most ideologies have something to offer on most issues, but also produce foolish and inhumane results if taken too far.
I would like to add some questions to this discussion:
- do some of the abolitionists take the view that there is something essential about a prostitution relationship, meaning that selling intimate sexual acts is always and necessarily wrong because sex is such a central part of a woman’s being? My impression is that some women have this view of sex based on personal experience, whilst others are more able to detach themselves from sexual acts. Someone who feels less intimately bound up with sexual acts she is performing will obviously have a more pragmatic view of prostitution.
- Similarly for clients: websites where they discuss their experiences suggest that most of them are aiming for something quite close to a ‘girlfriend experience’. I’m inclined to take this at face value, but I think it’s obvious to some of the contributors that this couldn’t possibly be what clients want.
- I think the diversity of women engaged in prostitution needs to be acknowledged. A drug addicted 14-year-old coerced onto the street by a violent pimp is in a very different situation from a 35-year-old independent escort advertising services at £100 per hour from her own website. It is obvious that men should be discouraged from having sex with the adolescent, but less obvious that they are doing anything wrong with the independent escort.
- I think it is helpful to distinguish between people trafficking for sexual purposes, which involves tricking and coercing smuggled people into prostitution, and people smuggling, which involves getting someone illegally from one country to another. The problem is that once someone has arrived illegally they become extremely vulnerable, so that smuggling tends to take on aspects of trafficking. My impression is that the government is tending to assume that any evidence of migration is evidence of trafficking. Immigration policy is obviously bound up with this issue: if there is free migration there is much less scope for trafficking.
- There is also a relationship between drug policy and prostitution: if drugs were simply legalised or freely available from the health service there would be little reason to engage in prostitution because of addiction, and street prostitution would be a less desperate enterprise than it is now.
I think that underlying the heated debate there is basically a different set of attitudes to each of these issues.
Anyone got any answers…..
Too Much To Say For Myself 
On behalf of no one but myself
Question 1) No. The issue IMO is nothing to do with that. The problem is that the way in which sex work is constructed in society, (to do with the way that sexuality itself is constructed in society) is that it reduces women to commodities for the purchase of men. And encourages the belief that men have a ‘right’ to sex.
Question 3)I don’t know anyone who DOESN’t acknowledge the diversity you describe. Including those who would like to sex work/prostitution abolished altogether.
Question 4) Can you provide an example of when the government has made this conflation? Because I can’t think of one. It is, as far as I know acknowledged, that illegal entrants to the country can be engaged in a variety of work.
Question 5)I agree, Heroin should be available on prescription, which would remove the need to engage in prositution to pay for it. Not so sure about crack though because of the unstable nature of addiction to it.
And re point 2). Well a lot of people abuse their ‘girlfriends.
And I must point out that I’m the woman who once had a ‘casual shag challenge’ with my mate – the object of the competition being the first person who could get casual sex. She won. Twice. Bah! But both the casual shagees turned out more trouble than they were worth – one reason why a lot of women aren’t keen on casual sex. The other being personal safety.
But Mr Cowling lots of women have casual sex. It isn’t the same as having sex with someone you find physically revolting for money.
ill give them a go but im out of the discussions elsewhere.
1/”do some of the abolitionists take the view that there is something essential about a prostitution relationship, meaning that selling intimate sexual acts is always and necessarily wrong because sex is such a central part of a woman’s being?”
i dont think its a central part of anyones being as such – i mean i think its central as much for men as it is women, there are lots of people who just dont care about it at all. i believe that all sex should be consensual and between equal partners, not about an exchange of goods. if there was no poverty and it was just favour for favour, then i dont think it would be such a big deal, i dont see sex as something that requires love or even like. but as it is in the here and now, where there is poverty and desperation and massive oppression of women and abusive sexual conditioning that wrecks peoples ideas about sex before theyve even had a chance? i cant see prostitution as anything other than exploitative in these conditions.
3/ “I think the diversity of women engaged in prostitution needs to be acknowledged. ”
well, yeh. which is why people need to start listening and stop claiming to speak for people they have no right to speak for. its why i think we need to be very clear about any organisation that claims to represent prostitutes – i know anonymity for individuals is required, but organisations dont require that anonymity and its really important that we know who is pulling the strings. so we need to know who is in charge, where funding is coming from, how decisions are made, who gets to vote (if voting is even going on), and the way that the membership is formed.
4/ “I think it is helpful to distinguish between people trafficking for sexual purposes, which involves tricking and coercing smuggled people into prostitution, and people smuggling, which involves getting someone illegally from one country to another.”
yeh of course its helpful. but i think people sometimes forget we also home grow our lower class of prostitutes, you dont hear about them much. when we talk about prostitutes who dont choose to be there, its not just traffiking we’re talking about.
5/ re the connection between drugs and prostitution.
some people are saying that reliance on drugs causes the prostitution (to pay for the drugs). but the prostitution causes the drug abuse and addictions in the first place. lits a circular relationship – lots of people in prostitution get there through rape or exploitation in the first place. then you start on the drugs because its a lot to deal with, then you need to submit to exploitation to fund the drugs to treat the exploitation in the first place. the prostitution ‘industry’ causes the drug abuse and then relies upon it to thrive.
Sorry, I think if he’s an academic he should go off and read some books and do his own research. Has Mark read Andrea Dworkin or Sheila Jeffreys yet? If not he should start there.
I’d also like to know where Mark stands in this debate. Question number 3 sounds like the typical apologetics from the pro sex industry lobby.
Questions for Mark – does he think the ideology behind the slavery abolitionists would have produced foolish and inhumane results if taken too far?
How does he envisage the eradication of prostitution being “taken too far” and what negative results would he expect?
I think the pseudo academic so-called “objective” pose is often a front for a defence of male supremacy. Would that be correct in Mark’s case?
I am a bit doubtful about the ‘academic’ part as well Delphyne. Surely an academic would have some support for the assertions they make? Mr Cowling just seems to be coming out with the same tired old assumptions to me viz:
1)All radical feminists are frigid and don’t like sex.
2)Men pay for sex because they can’t get a girlfriend
3)Loads of women like doing sex work and do it out of free choice, so why do feminists want to stop it?
4)The government lie about sex workers in order to support their fascist policies
5)You’re just a bunch of hypocritical right wing prudes who want to ban drugs.
Subtext is all
I did google him before I posted the questions. He’s legit:
“Dr Mark Cowling’s main teaching areas are sexual violence and sexual crime, criminological theory, and crimes of the powerful.”
I’m sure he’s an academic. What I’m wondering is which side is he on? There are plenty of pro sex industry academics out there who use their position to lobby on behalf of the sex industry.
I don’t doubt he’s legit Cath, but he can still have an agenda. When I was at Uni, we had a book in the library published by the Paedophile Information exchange, which argued that children were stopped from exercising their sexuality by not having sex with adults – that was early 90’s, and how many times did you hear liberal types argue that in the 80’s?
Of course I’m saying Mr Cowling is a paedophile, but according to this reviev of his book, he’e not a feminist either.
http://icj.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/18/1/106?rss=1
Ahem: (on ‘date rape’ in college)
“Cowling argues for a ‘real life’ model of consent. His argument that in order to withdraw her consent, a woman could just pretend she’s going to throw up (p25) is not likely to have many converts”
Nice – next time a bloke’s trying to rape you laydeez, don’t bother with that tiresome old ‘no’ business, just threaten to chuck up him.
WTF?????
And FYI Dr Cowling, as a radical feminist (that means getting to the root of, not extreme) I don’t believe that social phenomena occur in isolation. The question I ask about sex work is not are the individuals participating doing something ‘morally wrong’ but what is the effect of the existence of sex work on the position in society of ALL WOMEN. The ‘rights’ of the individual to do anything must always be balanced against the broader social picture.
““Cowling argues for a ‘real life’ model of consent. His argument that in order to withdraw her consent, a woman could just pretend she’s going to throw up (p25) is not likely to have many converts”
Oh ffs!
Yeah sorry to troll on on this issue Cath, but I found page 25 on google books. (anyone can do the same thing by going to google books – the book is ‘making sense of sexual consent’.) He describes a scenario with John and Mary, who are on a date. Mary is ‘provocatively dressed’. They indulge in some flirting, kissing etc on the date, then John attempts to have sex. Mary quite clearly and unequivocally says no to any further sex. John continues anyway and rapes her.
Cowling’s ‘real life’ interpretation of this. Yes it IS rape (Phew).
BUT: “Mary has a series of eleven choices where she encourages John before deciding she does not want to go any further. It would be much better if she cried off at an earlier stage, or alternatively supplied John with a more decisive explanation. “oh no, the lobster I’m going to throu up” “I’m sorry I’ve just got a blinding headache” “Oh no, I’ve been having such a lovely evening, I’ve just remembered I’ve got to look after my sister’s children from midnight to allow her to go to work, etc, etc”
Dr Mark Cowling: FAIL
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FSjEnDrb8QcC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=%22mark+cowling%22+date+rape&source=web&ots=JsQJI7PxTW&sig=aBbYlHIAA_zFFvXS4aAN1Nj5_Sg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA24,M2
And Dr Cowling – with all that education – ( I mean – Teesside – ranked 102 out of – um 113 universities by The Independent), how prestigious is that) –
Which bit of ‘because a woman consents to some sexual activity, it does not mean she consents to ANY sexual activity”
Or “Rape is never the fault of the victim”
Do you not understand?
Hmm “provocatively dressed” now how did that manage to find its way into a ‘rape scenario’?
Every time someone says that prostituted women would be raped less if prostitutes were personally empowered, they are saying what Mark Cowling is saying, that women can talk their way out of being raped by a man intent on abuse.
It’s not a novel approach to put the responsibility on women to stop their own rapists. Men have always believed that women who are raped are somehow responsible for what men do to them through “provocative dressing”, drunkenness, or negligence to treat all men as potential sexual predators and prepare a false vomit act accordingly.
Now we have women also contributing to the myth that a woman, ANY woman, can distinguish within a few minutes if a man is likely to rape her.
Cari Mitchel of the ECP says, “If they make solicitation illegal and start outing clients, men are going to be more nervous and women will be forced to make hasty decisions to survive economically.”
I want to know how long it takes Ms. Mitchell to determine if a potential john is a rapist. Why can’t these rapist-detection skills be taught to women whether or not they’re prostitutes, whether or not men have a legal right to comandeer control of women’s sexual organs?
Reminds me of pro-pornstitution advocates who praise a 100% mandatory condom policy in Thailand for saving sex worker lives while condemning a 100% condom mandatory policy in pornography on the basis that it will push porn production underground. Can anyone come up with a non-racist reason why pro-prostitution advocates think mandating 100% condom use will push Californian sex workers into a dangerous underground but the same edict applied to Thai sex workers will not push those women into a dangerous underground but bring better, above-the-board brothel conditions?
The threat of driving sex workers into the arms of more violent pimps and johns in “the underground” seems to pop up and down in specious times and places.
Yes indeed Sam. One of the arguments put against the proposed laws by feminist fightback is this:
http://www.feministfightback.org.uk/?p=35
“For street sex workers, already the most vulnerable group of sex workers, it can have even more serious consequences. Women are forced to take more risks. They have less time to decide whether or not to get into cars, are forced to work alone rather than in pairs or small groups and pushed into darker more isolated areas.”
What? If street sex workers had some magic psychic power to decide which clients were dangerous or not there wouldn’t have been any murders in Ipswich. The new law is not going to make a blind bit of difference. Clients of street sex workers are already doing something illegal in any case by soliciting women in the street. So street prositution is already ‘underground’ in any case. The REALITY is that the police largely ignore it.
Cowling also takes the view that rapists don’t set out to rape, but are overwhelmed by lust. and sent confusing ‘signals’ Which is bullshit. Any ethical man knows that no, does indeed mean no.
Stop blaming women for male violence.
Also what country is Cari Mitchell in. “Solicitation” IS ILLEGAL in the Uk. And has been for as long as I can remember.
Polly: Sex work in Thailand does not have the same stringent STD testing programs and performer status data base that legally made US pornography has. That could be a very large part of the reason.
edit, that should be an answer for Sam.
Well with respect, (and this is a complete thread drift, sorry Cath) that makes the reasoning even more difficult to understand. If the Californian industry already accepts regulation, there’s no reason why they wouldn’t accept further regulation – Unless STD testing is daily, someone could still pass on an infection if they are infected between tests in California. Whereas personally I find it very hard to believe that condoms really are used 100% in Thailand – which I don’t know a huge amount about I freely admit, but would surely be harder to police. And would be likely to drive sex work ‘underground’ surely.
STD tests don’t prevent STDs, they only detect them after they have already been caught. That’s no excuse not to protect sex workers from deadly diseases.
Why would legal. regulated, ethical pornography producers react to such OSHA-stipulated safeguards by threatening to make their prostitution documentaries illegally if they can’t continue to get away with endangering the health and lives of sex workers?
Angry, spiteful retaliations from pimps, traffickers, and other misogynists are what industry lobbyists hypothesize will happen in the United Kingdom if men can’t fuck their whores however they want, only It isn’t a hypothetical in the United States where several pimpographers have threatened to ignore laws on basic, simple sex worker safety measures to keep their profits as high. Porn consumers, like most other johns who pay pimps for the sexual use of women, get off on seeing women hurt and their health endangered (look at the titles), and as one pornographer bluntly put it, “Someone is still going to be making a shitload of money off condomless porn so that person might as well be me.”
sam:
I realize that tests do not prevent STD’s. As for testing it depends on the amount a person is working. They can get tested every week if they desire. And yes, sure enough, there are people who do prefer to watch porn without condoms in it, however, not all porn is made without condoms, condom use can be found in porn, and there are reasons porn performers themselves prefer not to use condoms-everything from latex iritation to endless UTI’s to the things getting “lost” and having to seek medical attention to get them removed. A performer also can choose to do condom only scenes. She or he may have reasons that are less than ideal not too (more money, the director prefering non-condom), but the option to do condom only is there.
The last HIV cases to occur in legally made porn in the US happened in 2004. For an industry with that much sex occuring, and the number of people involved, I think it is a testiment to how serious they do take their testing policy and that it has been effective.
Now, if one looks at Thailand, in the late 80’s is determined that anywhere between 30-40% of sex workers in cities had HIV. The Government issues a policy on condom use, drug use, and sex ed, and the rate of HIV transmission has drastically declined. That is a human health and welfare issue, and results have been seen from it. People-at least for the forseeable future- will by and sell sex in Thailand- and in the here and now, is not important to see that HIV rates remain on the decline?
Your excuses are a pitiful attempt to make prostitutes take all the responsibility for their own protection. You erase the influence of pimps by not mentioning them, minimize the influence of paying men’s demands with the evasive understatement “condom use can be found in porn”, then suggest deadly risks are taken with women’s lives because the prostitutes really want it that way, not the pimps and the johns.
It has not been lost that in your rush to make excuses for men who get fun and money out of sexually abusing women you neglected to explain why legal, ethical pornographers have threatened to go illegal if they have to obey OSHA safety stipulations. I’ll assume your answer would be some claptrap or other about pornographers benevolently expressing the wishes of their happy employees who are the real people threatening to work illegally in the prostitution underground rather than be subjected to using condoms.
“the rate of HIV transmission has drastically declined.”
That’s not what happened. What happened was the Thai government’s attempts at regulating prostitution forced thousands of the most vulnerable prostitutes into the dangerous criminal underground where they are no longer counted by government statistics, where they are left to be raped until disease, men, or their own hands end their painful lives. You can’t blame UK feminists for potentially ‘making” johns and pimps hurt women more without accepting that industry lobbyists who thought Thai brothels using more condoms become acceptable workplaces have caused the dungeony deaths of thousands of women and girls forced underground.
I blame neither puny factions of feminists nor puny factions of sexworker rights lobbyists for the tortures pimps and johns inflict. I blame the male demand for whores.
Google results from August 2008 for:
“child sex workers” 18,400
“prostituted women” 20,300
“child prostitutes” 79,300
“sex workers” 1,750,000
“prostitute” 12,300,000
“whore” 41,000,000
I blame the actual people who torture and hurt them, not everyone else who might be involved in the business.
Whatever Sam, there is no talking reasonably about anything with you, that much is evident.
“The last HIV cases to occur in legally made porn in the US happened in 2004. For an industry with that much sex occuring, and the number of people involved, I think it is a testiment to how serious they do take their testing policy and that it has been effective.”
The US industry is involved all over the world, and ‘content’ has to get cheaper.
The consent model relating to the HIV problem, as cited, hardly any better than Thailand or Cambodia.
‘Roxx’s interview with AVN itself shows the fluidity of “consent” in these matters. “I told [my manager] I wasn’t interested in anal at all, and I was a little freaky about the no-condom thing too,” she said. On arriving at the film shoot, she was pressured into performing the “double anal” scene by the director, Marc Anthony. She says: “So I get there and Marc Anthony tells me it’s a DA, which stands for double anal. And I’m like, ‘What? I’ve never done a double anal’. And he was like, ‘Well, that’s what we need. It’s either that or nothing’. And that’s how they do it… I think that sucks, because he knew double anal was dangerous.” Later, she says, she was in pain and could not sit down.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/22/iraq.comment
Yvette Doll
Let them eat HIV: Who failed Lara Roxx?
Warning: graphic descriptions in this post.
Gee, who would have thought that having two strange men jam their un-condomed penises into a woman’s rectum at the same time might give her a whopping case of HIV?
http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/000873.html
My experience of Canadian pornographers, and I would suggest there are links with the USA, would be often as grim, as the case of the Canadian female, Lara Roxx, going to California.
Some of the Canadian pornographers were criminals of the worst kind.
Yvette Doll
Factual aside: It’s now been confirmed that HIV is easily transmitted from males to females during penis in vagina intercourse in any case. So any type of intercourse without a condom is a high risk activity.
The option to do condom only is there, but there is more money for the women if they’re not used? Funny things, options. Especially when you’re desperate.
That there is a demand for women to be put in danger for the entertainment of men, and consequently a financial need for many women to agree to it, seems to encapsulate the ‘sex industry’ and its woman-hatred quite well.
What we had in Canada, UK and Ireland, was the state as pimp, Japan as well obviously,
with a background of racism, the people in London ignored the Dutch/Irish gangsters exploiting the DETE scheme, DEL in Belfast, they were going to do you next.
I was just a paddy with a God complex
“The lunatic fringe of this alliance of fundamentalist Christians and extreme feminists even try to portray the lap-dancing industry as akin to the slave trade. One particular God-botherer from the Catholic far-Right in correspondence with the work permits agency has even threatened Tony Blair and blamed the Prime Minister personally for allowing Ireland’s shores to be polluted with this filth.”
Not one Irish or English girl had replied to that lap-dancing club’s advertisements.
I warned feminists that Tony Blair ( who has no moral centre) had registered the fact that there was no opposition to state actors pimping in ‘our’ part of the UK. That’s why your lap-dancing epidemic happened, Blair was the cheerleader for ladism.
Tony Blair is unquestionably the most pro-pornography politician I have ever encountered, it was his real religion.
“Hats off to George Galloway, who in a majestic final fling before his ejection from the chamber on Monday night succeeded, according to Hansard, in adding the words ‘spunk-loving sluts’ to the parliamentary lexicon.”
Spunk Loving Sluts was Blair’s blueprint for British high streets.
Gregory Carlin
Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition
Thanks for giving me a thread of my own, and thanks to the people who have responded to my questions. My apologies for not responding promptly in turn. Here are some responses:
I am a genuine academic, and work at the University of Teesside. You can find me on the web at: http://www.tees.ac.uk/depts/socialfutures/ss_law_staff.cfm?cowling=true#cowling but the picture of me is not terribly flattering! My most recent book is Marxism and Criminological Theory: A Critique and a Toolkit, Palgrave, 2008. The University of Teesside has been tending to move up various rankings. It is particularly good at offering a university education to students from a working class background. The very best students I have taught here over the years have been mature women students.
I regard myself as pro-feminist, in the sense of wanting a society where men and women are generally equal. I think second wave feminism has been very successful in many respects, and that this is something to celebrate. For example, in higher education we now have a slightly higher percentage of women students than the percentage of women in the population. There is currently concern that women are paid on average 17% less than men for full-time work, but at the time of the 1970 Equal Pay Act the gap was 34%, so things have at least been moving in the right direction.
I think that about the least successful area for second wave feminism has been that of sexual violence. Despite extensive changes to the law and to police and court procedures in this area the rate of conviction for rape has just gone up from a bit over 5% to just over 6%, meaning that about 94% of women who approach the police complaining of rape do not see their assailant convicted. Moreover, although there is controversy about how many women are victims of rape but do not contact the police, it is plain that there are very many who do not.
People who have looked at reviews of my previous publications in this area have found contributions to a discussion of communicative sexuality. This discussion pre-dates the Sexual Offences Act, 2003, which I regard as incorporating as much of the idea of communicative sexuality into English law as it is realistically possible. The only criticism I have of the Sexual Offences Act, 2003 so far as the definition of rape is concerned is that I think it should have a specific clause which says that having sex with someone who is too drunk to consent, however they have become drunk, is rape. The clause should probably also specify that someone with significant motor or verbal impairment or who is passing in and out of consciousness is definitely too drunk to consent. Apparently the Court of Appeal has ruled that the current law has implications of this sort, but there are various indications that people on juries are inclined to regard anything that happens to an inebriated woman as her responsibility.
To explain a little of my apparently politically incorrect views about rape: communicative sexuality is the idea that the obvious explanation of having sex is mutual pleasure. This is best facilitated by good communication between partners on the model of friendship. One version of the idea of communicative sexuality is the famous student code developed at Antioch College, Ohio. This demands that specific verbal permission should be given for each new stage of sexual escalation. It led to widespread ridicule on the grounds that it was mechanistic, and the image of students from the college going on dates with a breathalyser, a lawyer and a pile of consent forms. However, it seems to me that the idea of consent as an ongoing process, which is part of what the Antioch College code was trying to capture, is a valid one. I wondered if it might be possible to get a picture of consent as an ongoing process which is more realistic than the Antioch code. Therefore,in my 1998 book, Date Rape and Consent, I discuss the idea of communicative sexuality in the context of an example of date rape offered by Andrea Parrott. It comes from her introduction to Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime (New York, John Wiley, 1991, p. 9):
Mary and John had been dating for two weeks. Both Mary and John had slept with people in the past but they hadn’t had sexual intercourse with each other. On their fourth date, after John took Mary out for a lobster dinner and then to a wild party to meet some of his friends, the couple went to John’s apartment. Mary was wearing a sexy, provocative dress. She had spent a lot of time getting ready, because she wanted to look her best for a special evening. After they got to his apartment, they shared a bottle of wine, listened to music, talked, laughed and kissed. Mary told John what a wonderful time she was having with him. John suggested that they move to his bedroom where they could get more comfortable. She nodded in agreement. In the bedroom, they started dancing erotically and kissing passionately. John caressed Mary’s breasts, and Mary moaned. When he started to unbutton her blouse, Mary asked him to stop. He kissed her gently and continued to undress her. She begged him to stop. She told him ‘No!’ emphatically and said that she was not ready for sex with him. He continued anyway, telling her that he knew she wanted it. He told her to relax and that she was really going to like it. John assured Mary that he loved her and that he had been thinking about this moment ever since they first met. He pulled up her skirt and pulled down her panties. While holding both of her arms with one of his hands, he unzipped his fly, took out his erect penis, and penetrated her.
Andrea Parrott is making the point that this is rape, even though many people, possibly including Mary herself, would not recognise it as such. I agree that it is rape. (An interesting point about the example is that John’s motive is presented as a desire for sex, not domination or revenge. This seems to me to fit the survey evidence about date rape, which finds little violence and is more a case of the man ‘just carrying on’ when the woman has asked him to stop. However, it doesn’t fit with many accounts of rape where the motive is said to be anger, domination, revenge etc.) I would also agree that this was rape even if things had gone considerably further and Mary had consented to John having sex with her, but had subsequently asked him to stop and he had simply gone on. However, I have some sympathy with John. Why has Mary allowed him to get so far if she does not want things to go any further? There are 12 choices that Mary makes where she chooses to do things which, while not being consent to sex, point in that direction. This is why I suggest that it would be appropriate for her to offer some kind of an explanation. Hence my suggestions about headaches, illness, forgotten appointments etc. I am not suggesting that she has to give such an explanation, merely that it would be better not to treat John as an automaton whose sexual desires can be switched on and off instantly and at will.
Let us turn things round the other way, and assume that Mary is a friend of Polly Styrene and is trying to win a bet that she can have casual sex before Polly, perhaps Mary notices that John, who she has never met before, has moved in next door, introduces herself and immediately attempts to get him into his bedroom. I would again assume that John ought to be careful to make sure that there is not some misunderstanding.
I think it is important to discuss the normal process of consent for at least two reasons. First, to the extent that there is such a thing as a normal process of consent, it would be a useful point of reference in accusations of rape. Behaviour which departed from a normal process of consent would not necessarily be rape but requires more of an explanation. Second, I am pessimistic that a conviction rate for rape that has just risen to 6% is going to get anywhere near the rate for other serious offences. For that reason I think that strategies for reducing the amount of rape other than the criminal law are important. One of these, I think, should be school sex education lessons, which should include discussions of relationships and, particularly, of the importance of sexual consent and of ways in which it is usually established. Part of this should definitely be emphasising to boys that rape is a serious offence, and that this is a good reason is because its effects are so devastating. Another part, however, should be some discussion of patterns of consent.
I should be interested to see what other people think about the issues raised here, even though this isn’t where the discussion started.
Finally, to respond to some of the comments made on my original questions:
it seems to me that Polly Styrene accepts more of the radical feminist view of the relationship between sexual intercourse and other areas than I do. I don’t think that if sexual violence and pornography magically disappeared it would signal the end of patriarchy. I think that patterns of child care and patterns of work relating to child care are much more influential. I also don’t think that just because it is possible to pay for sex with prostitutes that this has a great deal of influence on male/female relationships generally. I think men generally recognise that they can’t pay for sex with most women; and, similarly, recognise that the sort of situation in pornography where a man calls to mend the lawnmower but immediately finds he is having sex with two women is a fantasy and not a reflection of real life.
On trafficking, smuggling, migration and prostitution, I think the proposal to criminalise the purchase of sex with trafficked or coerced women as an offence of strict liability is an indication of the government, or parts of it, sliding between these areas. There is a very big gap between assertions from Vera Baird that most women in brothels are trafficked and either the low number of women victims of trafficking rescued in operation Pentameter 1 and 2, or the picture that you get if you look at advertisements for massage parlours in, say, Manchester or escort agencies in the North of England.
I think that the following comment from v is interesting, but I don’t fully understand it: ‘i believe that all sex should be consensual and between equal partners, not about an exchange of goods. if there was no poverty and it was just favour for favour, then i dont think it would be such a big deal, i dont see sex as something that requires love or even like. but as it is in the here and now, where there is poverty and desperation and massive oppression of women and abusive sexual conditioning that wrecks peoples ideas about sex before theyve even had a chance? i cant see prostitution as anything other than exploitative in these conditions.’ What level of equality would be needed to make prostitution non-exploitative? Or ordinary sexual relations non-exploitative? I certainly accept that sufficient inequality renders sexual consent suspect, but if people have to be absolutely equal then just about all sexual partnerships are suspect, including the one in five where women earn more than their male partners.
You sound like you picked up your writing style from Forum, Cowling.
Your views aren’t “politically incorrect” they are sexist.
I don’t think if sexual violence and pornography magically disappeared it would signal the end of patriarchy. You are putting the cart before the horse Dr Cowling.
I think that sexual violence and pornography are some of the many ways in which patriarchy is upheld. I actually think patriarchy is indivisibly linked with capitalism. Don’t assume things – it’s very bad practice academically.
“If people have to be absolutely equal then all sexual partnerships are suspect”.
No just heterosexual ones. How dare you assume I’m heterosexual. Um and if you were a lesbian Dr Cowling, you’d realise how many idiots think porn is real.
And believing, as you do, that is up to women to prevent rape, is misogynist.
And newsflash: Men are capable of child care.
And my friend in the casual shag challenge is a lesbian too of course.
“However, I have some sympathy with John. Why has Mary allowed him to get so far if she does not want things to go any further? There are 12 choices that Mary makes where she chooses to do things which, while not being consent to sex, point in that direction. This is why I suggest that it would be appropriate for her to offer some kind of an explanation.”
(I thought it was eleven choices -Ed)
Why do you have sympathy with John? Mary clearly says she does not want sex. He is a rapist. Why do you have sympathy with him?
Women are not obliged to explain to men why they do not want sex. Women do not owe men sex. This is the mistake you are making. Any FYI, I know of situations where women have withdrawn their consent when in the middle of sex and men have respected that as they should. I know of situations where women have been in bed naked with men and said they did not want sex and men have respected that as they should.
A man who thinks he has a right to sex when a woman clearly and unequivocally says she does not want sex is a rapist. And you are a rape apologist. Women are not the gatekeepers of male sexuality. Men are.
forgot to close italics…..
Dr Cowling: heterosexist, much?!
If you’re genuinely ‘pro-feminist’ (I suspect you fall into the ‘providing it benefits teh menz’ type), then you’ll accept that actually it’s men that are responsible for rape, and it’s for them to prevent it.
Can I also point out that ALL sex offenders justify and deny their crimes. So I don’t care what men convicted of date rape say. If you ask paedophiles about their crimes they will say that children really wanted it, and interpret the child’s silence (out of terror) as ‘consent’.
I repeat – rape apologist.
Also tell:
I think men generally recognise that they can’t pay for sex with most women;
To any woman who’s ever lived in a red light area. Instead of just ‘thinking’ things Dr Cowling why not try listening to women’s real life experience?
However, I have some sympathy with John. Why has Mary allowed him to get so far if she does not want things to go any further?
This speaks as though sexual behaviour and affection is purely a single, goal orientated activity I.e. penis in vagina sex.
This is principally so in a culture where women are almost always blamed for rape and where victims blame themselves, and tell themselves it wasn’t really rape because of X, Y or Z.
Arguing that women who have been sexually attacked must have done something “risky” to provoke the attack is the language of the rape apologist.
How about men are rational human beings fully capable of listening to their partners and understanding that sex isn’t about pushing someone to do something they don’t want to do? Or how it isn’t about women “allowing” men to “get so far” and then wanting to stop. And seriously – have “sympathy” with “John” for what? Having an erection without a convenient vagina?
Please…
Strategies for reducing the amount of rape other than criminal law are important
The strategy is – men stop raping.
Mark Cowling’s entire argument is predicated on the belief that John genuinely ‘believes’ Mary consents. No he doesn’t. That’s what rapists say in court to get off.
Doh!
This seems to me to fit the survey evidence about date rape, which finds little violence and is more a case of the man ‘just carrying on’ when the woman has asked him to stop.
And again – lack of evidence of physical violence does not equal “consent”. Most women in this situation ‘freeze’, as they do if a stranger jumps on them while walking down the proverbial dark alley.
The legal question (sexual offences act 2003) is did the man reasonably believe the woman consented. If the answer is ‘no’, it’s rape. And if a man ignores a woman who tells him to stop, that is 100% about domination.
Let’s turn the situation round then:
Mary wants to go further with sex, but Mark says no. Mary says she is not an ‘ automaton whose sexual desires can be switched on and off instantly and at will”
She is angry so she picks up a kitchen knife and stabs John Is she justified?
Or using my example from my blog.
I am feeling very angry after reading your words. If I meet you, am I justified in punching you?’
Rape apologist.
Whoops. freudian slip – John says no.
NB my comment near the top should read “of course I’m not saying Cowling is a paedophile – Typo, missed out the not.
My answer (part 1) at:
http://pollystyrene.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/well-he-would-say-that-wouldnt-he-head-explosion-warning/
“There is a very big gap between assertions from Vera Baird that most women in brothels are trafficked and either the low number of women victims of trafficking rescued in operation Pentameter 1 and 2, or the picture that you get if you look at advertisements for massage parlours in, say, Manchester or escort agencies in the North of England.”
Mark
The pimps apply themselves to me with strightforward hatred.
I’ll tell you why, I cost them millions of dollars, they lose bank accounts, deposits on leases, they move from place to place, and it is set-up cost after set-up cost. I’m also a negative factor in their PR dream via the IUSW.
I know Jacqui Smith will treat the IUSW as if they were selling an incurable disease.
Anybody who is researching P1 or P2 who hasn’t spoken to Esmond Birnie, Donna Hughes, Susan Talbott, ( or myself) is adopting a tail before head approach.
It is also ( in my view) anti-Americanism. It is hardly a secret how the Home Office evolved its raiding strategies and that would have my own name at the very top of that pyramid.
The police were often ‘the friends’ or ‘customers’ of the brothel-keepers they were obliged into raiding.
Even in Northern Ireland, with boo koo political admirers, and a universally hostile attitudes to pimps, the police delayed raiding premises even if told to do so by the Home Office.
The Brits (UKIS) had to struggle to get reliable police officers in enough numbers to show up to do anything useful.
Gregory Carlin
Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition
“This is principally so in a culture where women are almost always blamed for rape and where victims blame themselves, and tell themselves it wasn’t really rape because of X, Y or Z.”
Try looking at the schoolgirl skirt bans. The EOC agreed to sit at a table and talk about protecting teachers from ‘false allegations’. Feminism has allowed the NASUWT to put a road block on real reform of *all* sex crime.
“personal safety: girls may be able to run faster in trousers than a skirt and they may be less vulnerable to indecent assault”
http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/eoc/Default4474.html?page=15370&theme=print
Until you sort out your teachers, you have nothing but aimless BS ahead of you. Is is today it cecomes completely impossible to track educator misconduct stats? Your country is a disgrace to civilization.
Half of Africa has higher standards. When feminism turned a blind eye to sex offenders working in schools you were telling the govt. sex offending was no big deal.
You don’t need to be in pimp that ersatz feminism (feminist fightback) to groove to that undeniable logic.
You have to help yourselves.
Yvette
Yvette – real feminists would never support a ban on schoolgirls wearing skirts to ‘protect teachers from false allegations’.
Because to do so would be tantamount to two things:
1)admitting that teachers who sexually abuse their pupils do so because they were “led on” and “just couldn’t help themselves” – which is similar to the kind of rubbish Dr Cowling spouts about men ‘not being automatons’.
2)It says that you can’t sexually assualt a woman/girl who is wearing trousers. Which is nonsense on a ten foot pole.
And the suggestion that a woman/girl is less likely to be assaulted wearing trousers than a skirt is just mind boggling. Because again it places the responsibility on women and girls to prevent rape. Something no real feminist would ever endorse.
England is the G8 capital of schoolgirl skirt bans, it is the educator equivalent of taking out advertisements in the obliging media and calling female pupils ‘sluts’.
Skimpy schoolgirl skirt ban – News – Manchester Evening News
6 May 2007 … Skimpy schoolgirl skirt ban. Exclusive Yakub Qureshi 1/ 6/2007. SKIRTS are being banned by a high school because girls are wearing them too …
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1008/1008182_skimpy_ schoolgirl_skirt_ban.html – 37k – Cached – Similar pages –
That looks like 15K of work to get it reversed. All ban schools will have a history of disputed touchie feelie stuff.
It never fails
Yvette
Are you still keeping up this ‘Yvette Doll” psuedonym, Mr Carlin?
Seems odd to me, somebody who usually represents an Irish organisation against something so important as sex trafficking would get so involved in a battle at an English school over whether girls wear trousers or skirts?
http://archive.thisisdorset.net/2005/7/9/109328.html
So, tell us more about your ‘Yvette Doll mode’?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.irish/browse_thread/thread/f06ad3b80f0273a1
I think I perhaps had the odd thing published by EG music,
I certainly attended meetings there. I did almost a hundred records, I can’t possibly remember them all.
I think the Lib Dems could have done better than Eno. By the way the Liberal Democrats are aware of why Jacqui can’t help the IUSW out.
“Seems odd to me, somebody who usually represents an Irish organisation against something so important as sex trafficking would get so involved in a battle at an English school over whether girls wear trousers or skirts?”
The DfeS were negotiating with the EOC about fixing ‘false allegations’ by banning skirts. If you do an FOI on the topic, you could strike lucky.
HRW had the same issue with MDOC.
Yvette
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1999/06/10/letter-attorney-general-janet-reno
Fifth, the settlement agreement imposes a dress code on the women inmates. The imposition of a dress code sends the wrong message to the corrections staff. It effectively shifts the blame for sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and invasions of privacy from the offending corrections staff to the women. The women’s rights movement has worked for decades to dispel the myth that women “provoke” attacks or “ask for it” by dressing in ways which are perceived as “immodest.” By imposing a dress code on the women, the settlement not only places the blame squarely on the women, but it gives the corrections officers another means to punish and harass the women.
So, tell us more about your ‘Yvette Doll mode’?”
Recently it has been hugely interesting.
That’s the difference between me and Douglas Fox, the only thing I’ve ever pimped is an art gallery.
What you have to understand, is that CEDAW precludes dress codes relative to:
“personal safety: girls may be able to run faster in trousers than a skirt and they may be less vulnerable to indecent assault”
http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/eoc/Default4474.html?page=15370&theme=print
You see, that is a no no
Which brings me to Vera Baird, could it be possible a school on her patch is doing it?
I am so glad nu-labor is getting buried at the next election.
Hopefully we will be short a few of the women, who were a dead loss to CEDAW.
“Are you still keeping up this ‘Yvette Doll” psuedonym, Mr Carlin?”
There are people paying a thousand bucks a pop for my ‘gallery’ records.
So the answer is definitely yes.
Gregory
People paying thousand bucks for your records?? You wish!
Gregory: you are no Feminist, but just another creepy man.