19 Dec 2006

The Paying For Sex question

Harriet Harman says you shouldn't be allowed to pay for sex. She'd better break the news to some of her colleagues.

The occurrence of this story raises a fair few questions not just about the issue of 'sex for cash' in terms of prostitution, but highlights why those against such things should have such a difficult time defending their side of the argument.

I've reviewed loads of sites, loosely termed as reality sites, where girls are offered money for sex. Now I know that I've said before on this journal that many such sites do not deserve to be termed as reality sites, it is fair enough to say that some of these sites could indeed be real.

So isn't this a type of prostitution? These girls are being paid for sex. Admittedly, the whole background to the payment is different than the normal course of payment in such deals. The girls on these sites are pressed for sex with sometimes the money being upped and upped before they give in and accept the offer. But I can't see why this brand of paid sex is any different from the 'normal' realms of prostitution.

This is why internet porn, although there are many elements to it that are far from satisfactory, is actually a far more important subject than it may be credited with. Questions such as this, and those over 'violent porn', have been brought up and thrown up added elements to the debates as a result of the internet and what it can offer.

I've always said though that I simply cannot understand why prostitution is illegal. It's one of the stupider and more illogical laws that is common to this country, but what makes it even more extraordinary is that it is one that is common to many countries. I'm not saying that legalising prostitution would solve all the problems that go along with it in its current illegal form, but it would solve some of them. And that has to be a start, surely?

Posted by Steve 17:41:00