Comments on: Walking Out a Rapist

By: brenna

brenna — Mon, 26 May 2008 16:00:17 +0000

I, for one, am completely okay with using the phrase “man enough” to connote “being brave and convicted enough to do the right thing.”

By: Cara

Cara — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:50:53 +0000

Marco:

I found your comment to be relevant and include an important point for discussion. Unfortunately, you chose to riddle that comment with sexist language towards both me and the women who are sex workers or being held in sexual slavery. You are welcome to rewrite your comment in a way that does not insult women if you’d like to see it published.

By: fi

fi — Sun, 11 May 2008 00:56:26 +0000

I think it’s a great campaign.
If you can’t stop them using prostitutes, at least try and stop them from using trafficked ones.

By: Cara

Cara — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:41:28 +0000

Patricka, I don’t think that it’s right to buy sex from a prostitute at all. Maybe in a world that didn’t see women as nothing more than sexual commodities, I would feel differently, but we don’t live in that world. As I said, I don’t like Johns or what they do. I also think that women should absolutely be able to legally sell sex. That doesn’t mean that I like it. Just like I think that cheating on your spouse is wrong. But I don’t want to outlaw it.

But that’s my personal opinion. From the objective standpoint that you’re talking about, I don’t think that either situation you describe is morally “okay”. I don’t think that women having no means of survival other than prostitution is morally “okay” for our society to accept. Under these circumstances, I don’t think that these women have a “choice”. But I do think that there is a moral difference between this and literally holding a woman hostage in sexual slavery. Just like there is a difference between a horrible sweatshop that someone works in because its their only means of making a living, and those who are being held hostage as slaves to perform the same kind of work. Both are horrible. Both are immoral. Both deserve our attention and outrage. Both need solutions. But one is a hell of a lot more difficult to deal with than the other, and I don’t think that taking away a person’s only source of survival is the answer.

By: Patrika

Patrika — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:40:59 +0000

Isn’t the initiative side-stepping a wider problem?: if a woman is hopelessly poor and her only chance of making money is by selling sex, which do you deem better: sending her back home to die in poverty, or buying sex from her (=letting others do so) thus helping her get out of poverty which she feels is worse than being a prostitute? I know this is a bit outside of the “trafficking of women who would never have consented to becoming a prostitute” that this campaign seems to be about, but isn’t this MUCH more common? What do you think, is it OK to buy sex from a woman driven to sex industry because of poverty? (I’m genuinely interested at what you’d say to that one, even though it’s clear you have no idea how it feels being poor, let’s say how you seee it from theoretical, moral point of view.) PS I’ve never had anything to do with buying or selling sex and don’t personally know anyone who has.

By: Feminist Avatar

Feminist Avatar — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:11:55 +0000

From my perspective as British, ‘punter’ does have the connotations of customer/ gambling that Cara mentions. It also brings up a picture of a particular kind of working class man (Victorian man with a cap who works in hard industry, drinks, gambles, perhaps involved in a bit of low-level crime). But, having said this, in recent years, it is increasingly used just to refer to men who use prostitutes.

Also just to be pernickity- prosititution is not illegal in Britain (although certain related behaviours are- street-walking, brothels). This is different from being legal- as many campaigners in the UK like to point out. The difference is mostly, if prostitution was legalised, it would come with various state protections for prostitutes and perhaps more regulation. As it is, it is seen as a not illegal, but risky behaviour- and so warrants no state interference.

By: Lyndsay

Lyndsay — Fri, 09 May 2008 08:33:16 +0000

Great. Even if it makes the average person think about expanding their definition of rape, that’s good.

By: Jha

Jha — Fri, 09 May 2008 02:26:58 +0000

I personally don’t have a problem with “man enough”. I REALLY think we need to reframe / redefine the identity of masculinity from what it is (macho asshole bullshit) into something better (read: kinder, gentler… less assholish) and more holistic. Whether or not we like it, the gender binary IS important for a lot of people who fail to grasp that grouping / categorizing others is harmful in many ways.

Frankly, I think that once the idea sets in that “being a REAL MAN means not being an asshole”, it’ll be a great deal easier to dissolve the gender binary.

I like this poster: puts a lot of responsibility on punters to watch themselves AND other men; goodness knows that men are more willing to shut up and mind their own business than muck about with other men’s privilege.

By: patrick

patrick — Fri, 09 May 2008 01:42:26 +0000

Thanks Kristan, You make a good point.

By: Izzy

Izzy — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:52:33 +0000

Welcome back!

The ad seems to make the message very clear and I’m glad for anything that helps keep women safe. I know human trafficking is a HUGE problem in prostitution, but I do wish the campaign had also made an effort at protecting women who are forced into prostitution through channels other than trafficking, like coercion or poverty.