Article by Marina James of femdomfilms.eu

Harriet Harman wishes to criminalise men who pay for sex.
On the face of it, it sounds fine, you might argue why should women face prosecution while the men get away with it?
But its a terrible idea.
Why is it a terrible idea?
Because it is going to make things extremely dangerous for women.
At the moment any sensible pro dom or escort will make sure that she only sees clients from a traceable source, this is usually a mobile number.
However once it is made illegal to visit a pro dom or an escort men will no longer be willing to provide this. And pro doms and escorts will be forced to take bookings from anonymous callers.
This will provide splendid opportunities for criminals of all kinds to attack or otherwise prey on women.
At the moment no robber or rapist is going to ring a pro dom or an escort and make a booking from his mobile number (or not if he's got half a brain) he will use a call box or a withheld number. The pro dom or escort will then know this caller is a risk and can refuse to see him.
But once Harriet Harman makes it a criminal act to pay for sex, no man will be willing to make a booking using a traceable phone number, so they will ring from a call box or a withheld number. This means that pro doms and escorts will have no method of avoiding dangerous callers.
Who else will benefit from Harriet Harman's largess?
Well pimps will start to do nicely.
As at the moment in the UK, pro doms are women who work independently of men, there are no pimps.But once women are faced with seeing untraceable clients then they might just start thinking that someone around to offer them physical protection might be a good idea.
What other ways will Harriet Harman's hair brained proposal actually increase crime?
Well it will expose a lot of men to blackmail for a start.
And it will also makes them vulnerable to violent crime. If they get beaten up and robbed by someone pretending to be an escort or a pro dom, what will they do about it?
Will they tell the police that they were about to commit a criminal act when they got robbed and assaulted? Or will they lie to the police and pretend that they got mugged? Thus leaving the offenders to carry on attacking and robbing other men?
Another area where Harriet's proposal will do great damage is in the tracing of sexually transmitted diseases. If a man pays for sex and catches something is he going to tell the hospital that he got this while committing a crime? Or will he pretend that it was from a chance acquaintance he picked up in a bar? This means that the important matter of tracing sexual contacts will be doomed from the start.
And Is Harriet Harman really interested in helping trafficked women? (as she claims) or is it that she feels that having members of her gender working in the sex trade reflects badly on her as a woman? Harriet herself says
"Do we think it's right in the 21st century that women should be in the sex trade or do we think it's exploitation and should be banned? Just because something has always gone on, it doesn't mean you just ring your hands and say there's nothing we can do about it."
However is working in the sex trade really undignified and exploitative?
Just imagine if the position was reversed and women wanted to buy sex or domination from men. Would the male sex workers and male pro doms regard what they were doing as undignified? or themselves as being exploited?
Or, as I suspect, would the fact that this was now a male profession give it exalted status?
The problem isn't what women do. The problem is that whatever women choose to do is viewed as a second rate activity.
Feminist research in the 1970s established this. Research showed that women made up most of the medical profession in the USSR, so this was considered a low status job. But in the States, where doctors were mainly men, being a doctor was a very high status occupation.
Any profession where the majority of those doing it are women is usually badly paid and despised. So the problem isn't how women make money, but how people perceive women and the work that women do. The sex trade is actually better paid than most women's work which is why women do this. The hours are also flexible and fit in well with child care and family commitments.
But Harriet Harman's insistence that all women sex workers are female victims being exploited by unscrupulous men does the women in the sex trade no favours at all.
Let us look at pro doms working in the UK as an example. These work as independents. and they work for themselves. They decide what sort of activities they will do. If they have a customer they don't like then they can if they wish refuse to see them. They decide where, when and if they will work. Significantly pro domming is an area where men have absolutely no say or involvement whatsoever. it is a profession entirely set up by and run by women.
And who does Harriet think will be prosecuting all these new criminals created by her law? Is she planning to increase the numbers of police? build new courts? appoint more judges? Build more prisons?
I doubt it.
So one assumes Harriet hopes that making it illegal will cause men to think twice before paying for sex or pro domming services.
But this is exactly the same philosophy which made it a crime to have homosexual sex. Did this actually stop anyone from doing it?
At one point you could be executed for having homosexual sex, yet this still didn't deter people. So why does Harriet imagine a lesser penalty will work?
The truth of the matter is that you can only pass laws which people are willing to obey. If you pass a law which no one is willing to obey then that law will be ignored. The only time that particular law will be enforced is if the authorities wish to make an example of someone or if they wish to take legal action against someone and can't make anything else stick.
Other women MPs are arguing that such a law is essential if the trafficking of women into the UK is to be stopped.
But why is a new law essential?
Kidnapping, imprisonment, rape and running a brothel are all currently illegal. All that is necessary is for these particular offenses to be prosecuted.
Therefore it seems obvious that any such law as Harriet proposes is superfluous.
Not only that but it will actually mean more crime, more disease and more exploitation of women. And if this is fairly obvious to me (and unlike Hariett Harman I am not a barrister) then it ought to be equally obvious to those MPs who propose the new change in the law.
Also you can't help asking yourself why it is that hardly any of the men running these brothels seem to get prosecuted? It can't be that hard locating a brothel, because there will be a constant stream of men coming and going and all the local people will be up in arms, moaning about it to the council.
So its reasonable to assume that the authorities know exactly where these brothels are, its just that they aren't doing anything about them for whatever reason.
In the UK pro doms and escorts aren't exploited legally in brothels by businessmen as they are in many other countries, because keeping a brothel and pimping out women is against the law here.
But one side effect of this proposed new law is that we could find that, far from outlawing brothels, it is actually going to pave the way to making them a legitimate business activity.
Because introducing an unworkable law that puts women sex workers in danger and spreads disease, will, once there have been a few murders and a nasty out break of venereal disease, result in yet another law.
With the avowed intention of making things safer for women and preventing disease.
And I rather suspect that this new law would propose that licensed brothels be set up in specially designated areas, and that it would be legal for men to visit sex workers in these areas (but not outside of it)
Of course it won't stop women working independently, but this would be discouraged on the basis that it is both better for the community and for the women themselves if they work in a regulated industry.
And with this end in mind there would be another law making it illegal for sex workers to work outside of licensed brothels.
But the end result would be that female sex workers would be forced to work for big businesses and their bodies used to make large profits for men.
And women would find that they were expected to do whatever it was that the brothel owners decided was 'best for the house'. Which would be whatever brought in the most money. Gone would be the escort's choice about what sort of sex she does with a client.
And she would probably find that subtle pressure would be put on her to do things which make a client's session more enjoyable, like working without a condom.
Also at the moment UK pro doms don't have sex with their clients. Pro doms apparently lose a fair bit of money from refusing to do this but it is their choice. if licensed brothels were set up there would no longer be this choice.
Either the pro dom would follow the brothel's policy or get out and starve.
So far from preventing women from being sexually exploited, Harriet Harman's proposed law is setting the stage for the institutionalised sexual exploitation of women.
Do we want to go down this unpleasant road?
No!
Say no If you are a pro dom or an escort and you want to retain control over your own body while avoiding being raped or robbed.
Say no if you are someone working in the health profession and want to avoid an outbreak of sexually transmitted disease
Say no if you are one of the estimated two and a half million men (this estimate will be on the low side as it is based on those who admit to buying sex) who are about to be categorised as a criminal, and put at risk of robbery and blackmail.
Say no if you work in the police force and are concerned about an increase in assault, rape, robbery and blackmail,
Say no if you are a barrister or a solicitor and are concerned about the millions of men who are about to be turned into criminals
Say no if you think it wrong for legislators to continue with their long tradition of deciding what's best for women
In order to make this task a bit easier please feel free to cut and paste all or some of this blog into your letter or email.

And click here to email it: Harriet Harman email

Or if you want to snail mail it, then send it to:

Harriet Harman MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA

"Pro Doms Fight Back" by Rebecca Winter

Marina James has written at length in her blog above about Harriet Harman's proposed new law, which aims to criminalise much of the UK male population.
One aspect which intrigues me is, how do you define paying for sex?
Is it just cash? or do expensive presents come into it? meals? jewels? property? and how about the men who perform some sort of service for a pro dom in exchange for being dominated?
And how do you define sex?
Is ordering a man to kneel at your feet and kiss your boots having sex with him?
And what about the numerous men who visit pro doms and who like to be feminised, tied up, put in chastity? Thrashed extremely hard?
Will they be guilty of having paid for sex because they've visited a pro dom? Even though no sexual intercourse has occurred?
Well from what I've heard the answer will be yes, if its erotic its going to be illegal.
But how on earth would the police enforce this law?
The only method would be entrapment. The police would need to set up a woman police officer in premises, advertise her services and then arrest all the men who visited her.
But are the police really going to want to spend time and valuable resources on prosecuting this new, victimless, crime?
Because it is a victimless crime. Harriet Harman may see escorts and pro doms as victims but we don't see ourselves that way, and we are not going to stop what we are doing just because it happens to stick in her craw.
Harriet Harman claims that this new law is essential in order to stop women being trafficked for sex. However that argument is ridiculous because there are already laws under which these criminals can be prosecuted.
I think that rather than turning much of the UK male population into criminals, Harriet Harman would do better if she targeted the actual problem.
She could set up special units to visit brothels and interview women to ensure that they really are working from choice. if there was any doubt then a further interview could be arranged away from the premises.
Then these women would be witnesses who could get the perpetrators locked up followed (if the criminals were foreign nationals) by deportation.
It seems the most obvious solution to the problem to me.
Apart from that, large sums of money must be generated by this sort of crime. Those doing this must be having to conceal or launder it in some manner (and the authorities could investigate this).
After all, isn't that why the Money Laundering Act was brought in? To make it harder for people to make money out of crime? If not, then what was the purpose of it? Was it just to make it difficult for everyone else to save their hard earned cash?

Article by Ziggy of www.encaoua.net

Regarding the new proposals the Labour government has published to ban paying for sex outright see here.

Firstly it appears that professional dominatrixes are not going to be immune from these measures it seems this going to penalise all who pay for services sexual or erotic.

Secondly this isn't just the government publishing proposals that will never actually become law as there is support with in the Labour Party for these proposals.

So I urge all to try to take some action in defence of individual. But maybe more importantly because the government is trying to screw with your living. Being a libertarian, I constantly find it disturbing that the government not only wants to regulate how you earn a living but seems to think its okay to tell you what you should be doing with your own body even if you're not harming another by your actions.

In fact I kind of believe many of you are actually carrying out a public service; if the government starts seriously restricting the sex industry there will actually be not so good consequences for the whole of society.

One thing that some of the socialist crazies in the Labour don't seem to grasp other than the concept of individual liberty is that some people actually like working in the sex industry; to my shame some members of my own party Liberal Democrats can't grasp this either even though the Liberal Democrats are meant to the party of personal liberty.

So, as I say, I urge you to take action by telling those who wield power. Please tell the politicians any way you can how strongly they oppose these repressive proposals to criminalise consensual sexual activities.

If you don't act now it's more likely successive governments will become ever more repressive towards the means by which you earn a living.

Ziggy (ziggy@encaoua.net)