主播大秀

It's time to change our approach but the men in power wont do that. The churches, run by men, will oppose it. How many women will have to die before we wake up to this tragedy?

"its not what we have - it's what we do with what we have"
These women have been murdered - we now will spend whatever it takes to find the perpetrator's of these murders - but if we had spent,but a fraction, of this sum on helping these poor women before this occured we could have prevented these death's.
PG

The Salvation Army ran a massive campaign during the world cup in Germany to highlight the thousands of trafficked women into Germany under duress to service fans. They said it was rape. Many of the women were from eastern europe or africa.

This is a grave concern of the Women's Aid in NI also and the NI human rights commission.

see;-

I think the figure for Soho prostitures thought to be working under duress is around 60%, mostly foriegn now.

If it was your sister or mother caught up in it what would your concerns be?

I would suggest;-

1) Provide options of education, housing, durg rehab and counselling like the Govt really means it - not just lip service. Very few of these women really want to be doing it - it is usually desperation.

2) Provide better laws to put the focus on the men using the women. ie making it easier to prosecute men for kerb crawling.

3) Experience has shown that where it is legalised and regulated the Govt is complicit in trafficking and sex slavery. There is NO way to keep this out of such a system. If the russian mafia trick you into prostitution in Europe and threaten to kill your family if you try to escape, you will tell any european Govt you are doing it out of your own free will. Put the resources into helping prostitues out of their situation and prosecuting the men.

PB

At last PB, something on which we can agree on.

We need - in addition to PB's points - I think an education programme aimed at men who use prostitutes to teach the reality of prostitution. I think many men if they really understood how horrendous the situations that drive people into prostitution would not wish to be complicit in that.

I honestly don't know enough to say if legalising prostitution would help. I suspect that prostitution is impossible to stamp out. If that is the case then regulation at least will go some way to help protect those who sell sex and perhaps provide services to get them out of the desperate situation which they find themselves in. It would also kill the role of organised crime in ther business. Maybe someone who knows more than me on this could comment on this point.

Why is William worried "as a man" about the facts he mentions?

As a man it isn't any of my business what some - a massive minority - do to other people. I am responsible only for ME - not the actions of other members of my gender, or species, or for other people with brown hair, or for other left-handed folks. As long as you aren't killing anyone yourself, why be worried "as a man" that more men than women kill? More right-handed than left-handed people kill, are you discomfited by that too, "as a right-hander?"

"Sinister connection" between "men" and "violence" - tarring an entire gender with one brush there are we not? Or perhaps you're tempted by a quantifier shift fallacy: most violent acts are commetted by men therefore most men are violent?

The last paragraph of this article was insane.

SG

I think the fact that most violent crimes are committed by men, most rapes, most murders, etc., cries out for explanation. Why are men more violent than women? This is historically the case and it is the case in contemporary life. Can anyone seriously deny this fact? Stephen, you don't need to be so defensive about this fact. It is a fact, though. No one is sugesting that Stephen is a potential rapist, it's just the case that men have a strange relationship with violence. I'm amazed to hear anyone dispute this. That really is insane.

If 90 per cent of violent crimes were committed by left-handed people, I think that fact really would need some explanation. It wouldn't be at all insane to ask what the connection is between left-handednes and violence. IF that were the case. Similarly, the connection between violence and men cries out for explanation.

I just asked my wife about this, and I agree. She says she thinks that there are differences between men and women aside from their genitalia, and that those differences should not be surprising and certainly should not form the basis for any policy changes. That more men than women are violent is like saying "Men grow hair in odd places." It's a fact of human existence that the characteristics of men are different to the characteristics of women, much as feminism would like to dispel that notion.

I just don't see it as relevant.

To ask the question: "Why are more men capable of more violence than women?" is like asking "Why do women cry more easily?" It's one of the many obvious differences of gender in the human race.

In the context of the political discussion about prostitution, my answer is that government has no business seeking to try and prevent, or ban, or regulate, or supervise, or monitor, or govern, anyone else's sex lives, period. There isn't any further discussion of principle for me: in a free society prostitution should not be illegal.

Hi Stephen. Thanks for the psychiatric evaluation of my last paragraph. This does rather seem to have exercised you quite a bit; so perhaps I should say a little more.

I'm making no inference of the fallacious sort you mention. I'm not arguing that most men are violent since most violent acts are committed by men. That would be plainly ridiculous. Most men are not the perpetrators of violent acts; violent acts are committed, thankfully, by a comparatively small section of the population.

My point is not an inference at all, in fact (fallacious or otherwise); rather, I am simply observing a tragic fact about humankind, namely, that -- for whatever reason -- violent crimes are committed considerably more often by men than by women.

According to a recent study in n England and Wales, for example, more than 90 per cent of violent offenders are male (and half of those are aged between 17 and 24). These are empirical facts which, I think, few people would dispute; and they merit the kind of examination they are receiving from criminologists, sociologists and psychologists.

You seem to take issue with my description of this strange connection between men and violence as "discomfiting". This word means "to make uneasy or to perplex." The connection between males and violence, though certainly not a simply causal one, is extremely perplexing. If you, as a man, rest easy with this connection, good luck to you -- I make no inference whatsoever as to your mental health or level of sanity.

I think that drug addiction plays a big role in young female prostitution. If so then I am not sure that legalizing prostitution is the correct approach to dealing with the problem.

Just a quick scan today of some papers turned up this ....

The girls can fund the habit through prostitution, the boys by muggings.

I sat on a drug trial of 10 or so teens in Manhattan for a four month period. I came away from that experience with the belief that all drugs in the USA should be legalized.

If my memory serves me I seem to remember hearing that if all the money spent in the USA on drug interdiction and enforcement was freed up, the USA could build and run two major research medical centers in every State of the Union.

My impression from my recent visit to Ireland and England is that the drug problem is as big there.

So if I had my way I would legalize the lot, build the hospitals and then dedicate a wing of each hospital in offering free treatment to all of those foolish enough to get caught in the drug trap.

Regards,
Michael

I don't think it should be assumed that only degenerates of some kind are attracted to prostitution. See, for example, the thriving legal prostitution industry in Nevada, USA. The girls like the money, see the men who make use of their services as equals, and simply choose the trade. Were prostitution legal in the UK, this would be moreso the case.

PS to my last post...

There is a massive difference between the claim:

"men are more violent than women"

and

"more men than women are violent"

the latter is true, the former is not. Many people here, including William, seem unable to see the distinction and blur these two claims into one.

SG

Gill:

The problem here is with the language used: "men have a strange relationship with violence." You say this is undisputable but it's rubbish. Men do not have a strange relationship with violence - some men - an incredibly small minority have a strange relationship with violence and it just so happens that this small minority of men is bigger than the small minority of women who have a strange relationship with violence.

The problem I have with your post is the same problem as I have with William's original. You both fail to use a quantifier at all. You simply speak of "men." That's a universal term, and given the huge number of counter-examples to your claim that "men have a strange relationship with violence" it is easy to see how your claim is false - and ridiculous.

To see just how ridiculous William's title is, for instance, take out "men" and "women" and replace them with "blacks" and "whites." Would that kind of language be accepted: "how do we get blacks to stop killing whites?" or "how do we stop heterosexuals from attacking homosexuals"?

Try treating people as individuals.

SG

John, I seriously think that the idea of prostitutes being empowered women who choose the lifestyle is a self-serving fantasy. One that many punters (and I make no inference concerning yourself, I should add) use to kid themselves that they are not exploiting someone else's desperation.
It's time people learned that the vast majority of prostitutes do it because of drug addiction, poverty, alcoholism or other types of social disadvantage - or are forced to by organised crime. Nearly none of them (including in Nevada, I'm sure) would do it if they had a choice.
The myth you perpetuate ignores the terrible existence of someone who is forced to sell sex.
Legaling prostitution may have some beneifts to protect sex workers but I don't think you'd be happy if your wife or daughter (or son) were selling themselves no matter how much money they made.
Have some sense, will you!

Sad as it is, there will always be a market for sex, for drugs and for gambling.

These are facts - because it's Human Nature. You and I may not fancy it, but there will always be a buyer and always soeone selling. If the trade of these "commodities" was taken away from the gangs and the criminals then I think we would go a long away to combatting the many evils that are associated with these vices.

Gambling is the least morally challenging (perhaps) but nonetheless is riddled with crime and corruption unless regulated. I would argue that prostitution and the drug trade would benefit from a similar approach.

If there were a properly run program in Ipswich then a murderer could not target these girls. They could be kept healthy, safe and perhaps counselled into more wholesonme lifestyles in time. On street corners, they are a sub-class and in by failing to change a system that is rendering them as somehow not full members of society are we not partially complicit in their murder?

Ok, I'm getting angry with Stephen G now. 90 per cent of violent crimes in the UK are committed by men, and the post merely acknowledges this and says we need to ask why that is the case. What is your problem with that question, Stephen? Instead of looking at the reseacrh that's being carried out by experts on the question, you rush off into flights of fancy with inferences nobody is making. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you are probably being wilfully difficult to raise a separate debate. The alternative is that you can't reason about these matters properly. You certainly can't recognise a quantifier shift fallacy of you think a "statement" is open to that criticism (that fallacy applies only to "inferences", not single propositions).

As for your concenrs about the category "men": like it or not, this category exists. You may wish to remove all group membership claims from this discussion and claim that all we have are dispersed "individuals", but I don't have to take you seriously when you say that. It's a FACT: 90 per cent of violent crimes in the UK are committed by men, mostly young men. No-one is suggesting that all crimes are committed by men, or that men "qua" men are criminals. NOBODY is arguing that; and the very reasonable post prompting your confusion isn't arguing that. Instead, all we are being asked to do is recognise that men are statistically over-represented in the violent crime figures to such an extent that we should ask why this is the case and seek to do something about it.

End of my rant. I expect this will be misunderstood too.

What is the big mystery about men and violence?

Anyone here understand testosterone?

In large part it is responsible for making the world go around, both the good and evil sides of it.

There is no mystery at all here. Anyone with a basic understanding of biology and sports physiology will get it. Atificial testosterone levels from bodybuilding for example always raises agression.

The thing is that a V8 engine is morally neutral, it depends on the motive of the driver as to whether it is for good or evil.

While I dont disagree with the stats from William I get the feeling this issue is always coloured by sympathy for the ultra-feminist agenda. ie all violence against women is to be condemned, but feminists (male and female) appear to place their importance as victims above other victims.
I see no reason why their campaign should not be linked to that of violence agains pensioners for example.
PB

PS SG I hope we might see a contribution from you to the what we believe section.

You seem to have quite an objective integrity whatever the subject, alebit I know we have different worldviews.

Strangely, I agree with PB that there isn't a mystery here. I'm not sure there's even a question that has any "practical policy" answer. As I said in post 8, it's a question that can be answered by asking any number of other questions about human gender. Why do women have a higher capacity to process emotion than men? Why do men grow obscene ear hair?

Let's ask the real question: why should prostitution be illegal in a free society?

Henry:

Not misunderstood. Ignored. I'll respond when you wish to reason about these matters and read what I actually said and what those I responded to actually said to warrant my response.

SG

Good grief - I agree with PB.

almost.

Physiology provides most of the answers as to the origin of this vilonce.

PB is ever vigilant in sniffing out the creeping liberal in us all however....

Good work fella.

By the way PB- there's a little joke for you at the end of "creation wars the result"...

Pb, yes, I think testosterone is part of the answer. I don't think it's the entire answer. As in most explanation, I reckon some combination of nature (hormones, genetics, etc) AND nurture (socialised behaviour, cultural location, etc) is necessary to fully explain a social phenomenon of this kind.

I don't really understand your point about victimhood. A murder is a murder is a murder. I'm a feminist, and I certainly would not value the murder of a women more highly than the murder of a man or a child. I don't sense any suggestion to that effect in any of the conversations we've been having about the Suffolk murders, so I'm a little surprised by your decision to introduce that point in this conversation.

You and I would probably agree on a lot about this, in fact, on the basis of your comments here. The fact that you have sought to provide some kind of explanation for male violence is important for the conversation Will Crawley is trying to provoke. I applaud that effort and your contribution to it. Let's have more of these sensible discussions on air and online.

Voluntary Simpleton- If my standing up for a prostitute's right to use her body in whatever manner she pleases really were "self-serving" as you assert, I would have to be a punter of hers to have made the point. I can quite categorically inform you that I have never been to or used the services of a prostitute. So that deals with your claim about my opinion being "self-serving".

Second, you say that I'm ignoring "the terrible existence of someone who is forced to sell sex." That is not what I am supporting. If a woman is being forced to sell sex she should be able to go to the police and have the perpetrators of this infringement of her liberty arrested and charged for it.

I am instead condemning the idea that governments should make any kind of consensual adult sex illegal, including prostitution, which is the voluntary trade of money for sex; voluntary on the part of both parties. It's a basic human right to make money, and it's a basic human right to use one's body consensually in whatever way one desires. Nothing would do more to protect these women than ensuring that they have the full support of the law behind them and their industry, and against the perpetrators of violent crimes against them.

Firstly - as I stated in my original post - I am not for one minute suggesting you frequent prostitutes.

Your position is self-serving in that you seem to prefer a fantasy (and nearly our whole society does) in which prostitutes do it out of choice - it is self-serving in that it means we do not have to consider the true horror of a life of someone who has to sell themselves for drugs or drink or whatever. We are pretending there is no problem.

Most prostitutes - especially street prostitutes including all 5 murdered in Ipswich and all the various girls I have heard in interviews during the last week or so- are forced into it - not by pimps or white slavers - but by addiction and social deprivation.
Come on John, try to get my point - most prostitutes - as this week's news here has shown - do it out of desperation not out of choice.

Legalising prostitution may help make life a little less grim for the desperate souls who make a living this way but the real problem here is not Govt legislation stopping honest entrepreneurs plying their trade, it is, as GW has pointed out, the fact that society ignores the shocking plight of these people - by shunning them or - as your little Nevada fantasy scenario does - trying to make out that their situation is a matter of personal choice. And that means there is no duty on you or I to do anything about the causes that drive people to live like this.

Try and see this in terms other than commercial transactions or free markets. These are impoverished and marginalised people forced into work that nearly no-one would do if they had a choice. These people need more than deregulation of the "industry" - they need help out of it!

VS- Okay, so let's assume that prostitution is legal and the same protections and rights guaranteed to hairdressers are guaranteed to prostitutes in exactly the same way. Now we can be absolutely sure that the girls are doing it of their own volition. It is erroneous to talk about drug addiction "forcing" prostitution upon people, as though it is an entity with malice aside from themselves and their own choices.

But I'm not sure why I'm having to defend basic human rights in this discussion: what's your solution for helping these people from their own foolishness? You're in charge, VS- tell me what you're going to do to solve the problem.

Mary

I spoke with a kindergarten nurse recently who said the kids (pre-school) really needed to get into the playground in the morning "especially the boys, otherwise they [the boys] are really climbing the walls.

That is testosterone for you.

In my experience gender differences are really there before environment has had time to have much of an impact. I have seen this in my own children at very young ages ie they gravitate to male and female toys and tv shows of their own accord.

I was thinking about this and one of my biggest concerns about feminism at its extreme is that I feel it appears to be attacking the concept of gender [difference] and the concept of [masculine] men.

The headline to this blog entry is a case in point. It is sexist and discriminatory.

Any responsible society should want to stop people killing each other. But why should we single out the victims of men as of higher priority?

Yes I know about the statistics quoted but I think we should examine whether the real solutions to male and female murderers are not going to be pretty much the same regardless of the gender.

For example, I imagine real deterents that do not allow murderers to abdicate personal responsiblity and plead for therapy instead of punishment may well be the best start, regardless of what is between your legs.

PB

wow, it really is Chirstmas

look at all those people pretending to agree with me just because it is my special time of the year ;-)

seriously though,

quite a few people here are arguing that regulating prostiution is a credible way to protect prostitutes.

I appreciate it may work for some of them that way, but there is a whole lot of sex slavery going on out there where poor africans and eastern europeans are being kept as sex toys for rich europeans.

One question: If you are tricked into prostituion from eastern europe and the russian mafia tell you that if you dont sell yourself for them they will kill your mum, dad and brothers and sisters back home (this is happening all the time) the what possible method could a European Govt have for detecting that you are working under duress?

Check out the hyperlink in post three for expert opinion. I have looked at this in some detail and all the experts I know of dont think it is possible to keep organised crime out of this. The money is too easy, too good and the sleazy perks for these animals are there. They rape and beat these women into submission when they thought they were coming to westerm europe to work as nannies, waitresses and maids.

It is a crying shame.

PB

...there also seems to be an unspoken suggestion here that paints a picture of violent men attacking women.

That is painting women as the victims here and as we all know creating an aura of victimhood is hugely powerful in many movements.

The problem is, nobody has asked the question, what percertage of victims of violent men are other men?

That question would undermine the victimhood of extreme feminism and will not be welcomed by some.

PB

GW

I have to be honest I couldnt even get up a groan for that joke. It didnt even rate as bad, but on the plus side, I welcome your generous mood. It wouldnt be anything to do with the birth of Christ, would it ;-)

PB

VS- What is it exactly that makes you think prostitution is only the trade of the down and out? Various jobs within the sex industry are the preferred professions of thousands of people, both men and women, and most would not appreciate your sympathy nor your scorn. What about the thriving amateur porn market? In your world, are all the women involved doing it for a lack of options? I have much evidence that says the opposite. In face, if the 主播大秀 would allow it, I would link to the websites of several legal prostitution sites in Nevada, which may or may not change your mind.

Proof, my friends, that the political Left can be just as fundamentalist as the religious Right.

John,
You, like me, have probably had the advantages of a reasonable family life and a decent education - a chance in life. Many people do not get even that. Some people do not have the mental health, education or opportunities that allow you and I to run our own affairs competently.
You cannot just right people off as "foolish" if they fall into drug addiction or alcoholism.
Do you really believe that you have no duty of care for those who are no able to get it together themselves.

How to solve this problem? We need to destroy the drug trade (I take it even you would not take a free market position on crack or heroin).
Prostitution will probably always be with us but we need some form of legislation (in all sorts of areas) that ensures that only those sociopathic individuals who choose to sell sex are the ones who do so.

We need, above all in my opinion, to convince people that the commodification of sex is morally objectionable. But I doubt you'd agree with that.

This is a very interesting discussion.

A couple of points.

1) There is male prostitution and there are also male 'strip joints' frequented by young and old rich American women (I can only speak for the USA on this matter.

2) There are indeed built in differences in how men and women react to situations. This is anecdotal but what I have observed is that when support groups meet for women with cancer particularly breast or ovarian, the husbands 'won't' or 'can't' come with their wives. On the flip side in the men's cancer support groups the wives are usually always there.

3) I mentioned earlier (post 10) my experiences through the courts system with heroin, cocaine etc on the streets of NY City. IMHO drugs, sex, liquor, etc should be legalized and help offered to those who wish to escape. We seem to have learned nothing from the corruption, crime, innocent deaths that occurred in the USA under prohibition. The prohibition era problems are now with us in other areas.

4) If I am not mistaken one of the suspects in this particular case talked about giving a lift for the girls to get their drugs (don't haul me over the coals on this - I'm going on memory here because of time pressures on me today)

Cordially,
Michael

VS- You say: "We need to destroy the drug trade (I take it even you would not take a free market position on crack or heroin)."

Yes I do, as a matter of fact, and there are a lot more of us than you think (including Michael in post 31 who is right to say that our war on drugs is futile). Destroy the drug trade? America has been trying to do that for decades at a cost of billions upon billion of dollars, and barely leaving a scratch in the industry! Should we make alcohcol illegal too, since there are so many hopeless alcoholics?

You say: "We need, above all in my opinion, to convince people that the commodification of sex is morally objectionable..."

We finally get to the issue: you have a moral problem with prostitution, you judge those who do it as "sociopaths" and you believe it follows from there that you should try to stop people doing it. Yet in all of this, you are pursuing your own moral ends while simultaneously trying to prevent other people from following theirs.

VS- You and I view society in entirely different -- perhaps even diametrically opposite -- ways. I believe we're a bunch of individuals living with the results of our own choices. You believe we're all responsible for each other in ever more complex ways and that moral authority rests with the collective, not the individual. You're a socialist; and I'm not sure that an opinionated, individualistic capitalist like me is going to ever change your mind, no matter the strength of my argument.

To answer pb's question. We single out particularly in many discussions about violent crime for purely empirical reasons. It is simply a fact that 90 per cent of those crimes are committed by men. Why can't we face up to that tragic fact without any accusations of sexism? If 90 per cent of violent crime was committed by an ethnic group, we should be able to discuss that fact without accusations of racism. It would help if people stayed focused on the social facts here, and left the verbal abuse at home.

Actually I agree that the US war on drugs has been futile. But drugs destroy so many lives and cost society too much to just deregulate them. I once lived in an area of Dublin where there was a bad heroin problem and it was not pretty - the old and disabled could not live there it was just too dangerous. Drugs need to be removed - a range of strategies need to be used - you can't just give up and let the devil take the "foolish". Even from a libertarian POV it makes sense to at least try to clean it up. Drugs breed lawlessness and disorder.

I believe sex is a special, complex and sublime form of human interaction - or at least has the potential to be. Reducing it to something that can be bought or sold just does not feel right to me. Some things are sacred. Prostituted sex is not about communication or interaction, the seller is thinking of the money and buyer is merely involved in a elaborate form of masturbation. It is a hollow, lifeless thing. It pretends to be something it is not.

We are diametrically opposed I guess John. I really cannot imagine what is like to hold the opinions you do.
Two questions for you: Does empathy play no role in libertarian thinking? Is a libertarian capable of love - which famously "asks nothing for itself"?

VS- I am very glad you asked the question about empathy. My position does not hold that one must approve morally of prostitution or drug use. It simply holds that such activity should never be forceably prevented; ie. made illegal - for a variety of reasons, primarily reasons of principle involving rights and the legitimate role of government.

So it is entirely possible - as many libertarians do - to condemn an activity, have empathy for those who find themselves in the middle of it, and even volunteer to 'minister' to those people without wishing to make the activity illegal.

Personally, I'm not sure that I'm in a position to judge prostitutes or their customers from a moral or ethical point of view. I too hold that sexuality is special, but many people would argue that their practicing activities that involve some degree of polyamory does not devalue sex (see for example the thriving swinger community across the world). Such people even argue that their activity maximises the quality and sanctity of sex.

So my approach to prostitution is laissez-faire. I'm not morally superior to anybody else, and therefore feel unwilling to impose my moral theories of sex upon my fellow human being.

Mary

Im not making any personal attacks here so please dont take it that way.

I dont have all the answers but if you can refute my points sensibly I will be glad to learn something.

If we wrote this headline you would not get away with it;-

How do we stop women turning into hormonal monsters once a month?

And if you think you could get away nowadays with writing a piece about 90% of an ethnic group being involved in violent crime you are in cloud cuckoo land.

The problem is that it is fashionable and acceptable to demonise men.

It is all very well saying this is purely empirical, but where are the figures for all the victims of men, not just all the female victims of men - see the difference?

Again I ask three questions;

1) What percentage of victims of mens' violence are men?

2) What percentage of victims of mens; violence are children and pensioners?

3) What percentage of victims of mens' violence are animals?

I would say we used to have much less crime under old methods that did not get into gender studies terrority.

I am not saying I am right but I do believe it is culturally much more acceptable to have a downer on men than women or any other minority at present.

I am not disputing for a second that male violence against women must be challenged.

I am challenging whether this actual problem is being hijacked by extreme feminism in order to get a subtle knee in the groin into men and exalt the feminist victimhood agenda.

This is not for a second a personal attack on you or a denial of how serious this problem is. Please try and think about that.

PB

In post 34 Voluntary Simpleton wrote:

鈥淎ctually I agree that the US war on drugs has been futile. But drugs destroy so many lives and cost society too much to just deregulate them. Drugs need to be removed - a range of strategies need to be used - you can't just give up and let the devil take the "foolish".鈥�

VS: When my son was six years old I took him a Mets baseball game 鈥� his first and mine. Just before the game started we had the following conversation:

鈥淒ad, do you smell that?鈥�

鈥淵es, I wonder what it is鈥�

鈥淭hat鈥檚 marijuana, dad, you can get it behind my school鈥�.

In a country where teenagers are sent to prison for life for selling more that a couple of grams of cocaine, where we have run out of prison space to lock up drug peddlars, and where a six year old child has open access to the drug underworld when he goes to school, I would like to know what policy you suggest we implement to actualize your statement that 鈥渄rugs need to be removed - a range of strategies need to be used鈥�.

I don't approve of 'just deregulating them'. I would like to deregulate drugs AND with the enforcement dollars saved build two hospitals in every state of the USA where free treatment could be offered.

Is there a better strategy?

Cordially,
Michael

PB, you're making me despair here. Either you are being wilfully difficult or I should simply give up on making arguments in this conversation. I'll make this my last response, because I fear we've reached the edge of reason:

(1)The headling "how do we stop women turning into hormonal monsters once a one" is ludicrously far from anything we are discussing. Women, for the record, do not become monsters once a month, except in the view of some men with curious attitudes about women. Menstruation is natural; not weird, and not pathological. I'm astonished by that illustration.

(2) If 90 per cent of serious crimes in britain were committed by a particular ethic group, it would be perfectly reasonable to raise that issue explicitly in those terms. But this is not in fact the case. 90 per cent of violent crimes, whether you like it or not, are committed by men.

(3) No one is suggesting that women are the only victims of crimes committed by men. But look at the figures of violent crimes against women. What do you find? Overwhelmingly - more than 90 per cent - the perpetrator is male.

(4) You are back to your point about extreme feminists hijacking these statistics to make anti-male comments. I am a feminist and I'm married to a man I love dearly. Who are these extreme feminists you are worried about? None of them have contributed at all to the conversation we are having here. Give me an example of this: and if you can find an example of this, I will join you in condemning those extremists. Let's not get bogged down in this; every position can be jijacked by extremists (even christianity has is extremists who kill in its name).

Can I end by offering you a perspective, from a woman who has experienced violent crime and has also worked in response to it? I know you do not intend your comments and illistrations to appear inedifferent to these issues, but you are coming across that way. You are appearing to me - and no doubt you will dismiss my views as the product of menstruation - but you are coming across to me as someone who is so defensive about something unstated that you are trivialising life and death issues. I am sorry to be so direct, but for the world of me, I have no idea how you can wish to give this appearance. Let's all wake up to a problem: how do we deal with the enormous overrepresentation of men in the statistics of violent crime? Please let's stop playing pointless, adolescent verbal games and speak maturely of an extremely serious matter.

To put some actual statistics on the male/female crime rate here is some information from the U.S Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation published in 1996.

During the year, law enforcement agencies made an estimated 15.1 million arrests for all criminal infractions excluding traffic violations.

The highest arrest counts were for larceny-theft and drug abuse violations, each at 1.5 million.

Arrests for driving under the influence and simple assaults followed at 1.4 and 1.3 million arrests, respectively.

Of all persons arrested in 1995, 44 percent were under the age of 25, 80 percent were male, and 67 percent were white.

Larceny-theft was the offense resulting in the most arrests of females and of persons under the age of 18.

Adults were most often arrested for driving under the influence, and males most frequently for drug abuse violations.

77 percent of murder victims in 1995 were males, and 88 percent were persons 18 years or older. By race, 49 percent of victims were black and 48 percent were white.

Data based on a total of 22,434 murder offenders showed that 91 percent of the assailants were males, and 85 percent were 18 years of age or older. Fifty-three percent of the offenders were black and 45 percent were white.

Fifty-five percent of murder victims were slain by strangers or persons unknown. Among all female murder victims in 1995, 26 percent were slain by husbands or boyfriends, while 3 percent of the male victims were slain by wives or girlfriends.

By circumstance, 28 percent of the murders resulted from arguments and 18 percent from felonious activities such as robbery, arson, etc.

In approximately 7 out of every 10 murders reported during 1995, firearms were the weapons used.

wow Michael, cheers

I did not expect this.

So 77 % of murder victims in 1995 in the US were male.

Mary this really makes the discussion interesting.

I dont presume it proves anything, because stats are so fickle.

But it does throw a totally different light on this story.

Are men - not women - the biggest victims of violence by men?

PB

Muchael wrote:
I don't approve of 'just deregulating them'. I would like to deregulate drugs AND with the enforcement dollars saved build two hospitals in every state of the USA where free treatment could be offered.
Is there a better strategy?

I think that is getting there. Drugs legislation needs to make a many pronged attack. I don't think it is right to lump marijuana in with other drugs - I wouldn't use it myself but it is probably less socially destructive than alcohol - or at least no more so. Deregulating it might even be socially beneficial (stoners are not as likely to start fights in city centres as drunks).
Heroin and crack are another matter - the social disorder they wreak means they should never be generally available.
To destroy the drugs market you need education, hitting the supply structure and bank accounts of dealers, health programs to help rather than penalise addicts. The US war on drugs was a cack-handed, uncoordinated publicity exercise. It can be done better. We cannot just sit back and let market forces deal with the problem.

John,
I do not approve of prostitution but would not criminalise it (as if it were possible to stop). I think it is fine to judge the free choices people make. I think someone who freely chooses to sell sex is committing an immoral act that has a negative effective on society as a whole. Not as bad as theft or GBH perhaps but not desirable all the same. Wholly wrong would be to condemn someone who has no choice.

With regard to drugs, I find it a bizarre argument that you would allow people to get addicted and then go help them. Surely it makes more sense where drugs are concerned to stop people getting addicted in the first place? The entertainment value for some individuals that drugs provide does not outweigh the social havoc they cause.

Mary,

eloquently put in 38.

I dont honestly feel that we will ever change these statistics - bleak though that may seem.

We may reduce the overall number of violent incidents - but men will always be the perps, an the %'s will always show this.

We have a nasty cocktail of hormones and psychology preprogrammed to kick in when in a variety situations - and it does not translate to modern life well. (Perhaps yet more evidence of Evolution - Man was not created civilised...) But I digress.

I dont wish to appear an apologist, but if there is a way to improve things, it starts by recognising the nature of the problem. I think it's facile to ignore the problem that in many cases, we are wrestling with deep seated instinctive behaviours here.

Any thoughts?

Re Post 41 Anonymous wrote:

"Deregulating (marijuana) might even be socially beneficial. Heroin and crack are another matter - the social disorder they wreak means they should never be generally available. 1) To destroy the drugs market you need education, hitting the supply structure and bank accounts of dealers. 2) The US war on drugs was a back-handed, uncoordinated publicity exercise. It can be done better. 3) We cannot just sit back and let market forces deal with the problem."

1) When you introduce Draconian laws and penalties you find that those to whom the law may apply go deeper underground. That is why you find 12 year olds as the contact 鈥榩eople鈥� on the streets of NY City to whom one goes for access to the source of crack and heroin. 12 year olds ride under the Draconian radar.

When a 12 year old is paid $1000 a week to stand on a street corner sending the orders up the chain of command, and when that 12 year old can buy his most desirable set of latest sneakers, gold chains, and rap CDs, there is no chance of getting him into school for any form of education whatsoever.

2) To say that the US war on drugs is a back-handed, uncoordinated publicity exercise demands that you put some more substance into this vacuous thought. May I have some additional information from you in support of this declaration?

Please tell me how you see that over $12 billion (last time I looked which was over 10 years ago) in expenditures for drug interdiction and enforcement annually, prisons overflowing with mostly drug offenders etc is an uncoordinated publicity exercise.

3) I agree. I offered hospitals in my plan. I would add that to deal with the present crisis of this problem for many of the poor, I would permit pharmacies (chemists) to sell heroin at the correct market rate to those who are addicted now and offer them access to these hospitals through the pharmacy system. Heroin would be an order of magnitude cheaper to these unfortunate addicts.

This would also take the cash out of the illegal drug trade and take the need for teenagers to ride around NY City in mercs with uzis hidden in the dashboards to protect their hoards of dollar bills hidden in the car panels.

That is a serious comment! I sat for four months on a jury learning all about this stuff 鈥� it certainly cleared my mind of many misconceptions. In that trial I heard the following testimony from a 14 year old who had received a great 鈥榚ducation鈥� in the use of an uzi.

Attorney: Tell the jury how you aim this uzi.
Boy: Aim it?
Attorney: Yes, tell the jury how one aims it.
Boy: Aim it?
Attorney: Yes, how do you aim it?
Boy: Aim it?
Judge: Young man, do you understand the word 鈥榓im鈥�?
Boy: Man, I don鈥檛 aim it. I spray it!

Regards,
Michael

VS- I'm presuming post 41 was you. Let me respond as though it is, and if I'm mistaken you can correct me later.

You say: "I think it is fine to judge the free choices people make. I think someone who freely chooses to sell sex is committing an immoral act that has a negative effective on society as a whole."

Fine: judge people. But the folly of deciding public policy based on your version of ethics is only matched by your inability to understand the moral authority of the individual over his or her own life, body and money.

You say: "With regard to drugs, I find it a bizarre argument that you would allow people to get addicted and then go help them. Surely it makes more sense where drugs are concerned to stop people getting addicted in the first place?"

'Allow' people to get addicted? It is only arrogance by which you could assume the right to 'allow' or disallow other people to or from putting substances of their choice in their own bodies. I would not allow anything; their own rights do that. I would honour those rights in law; you would arrogate to yourself the authority to deny them. You want to "stop them getting addicted in the first place." I ask you again; how do you intend to do that?

1st apologies for forgetting to sign the last post.
John,
We are - yet again - going to have to agree to differ. I do no believe in the absolute sovreignty of the will of the individual. I think in a democratic society we can from time to time make laws that prohibit certain actions of individuals as dangerous to society as a whole. This should not be done lightly and such laws should be open to change.

Michael
I am aware the prohibition provides opportunities for organised crime. Deregulation would solve that problem but give us an even bigger one - as more people had access to dangerous narcotics. There is perhaps no way to finally end the problems that drugs cause but I think making hard drugs more available and taxing them is ludicrous.

The US war on drugs was a waste of money in that it hit the users instead of the pushers. There was also the other spectacular own goal caused by US Foreign policy in Afganistan leading to substantial rise in that countries opium paste production. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot. Any administratation that talks so much about curbing drugs and yet makes so little progress cannot be really be serious about dealing with the problem. As you pointed out jailing people for possessing small amounts is probably a vote winner but in reality does nothing to really deal with the problem while the drug barons go relatively untouched.

You idea of effectively flooding the market and selling to registered addicts to undercut the criminal pushers is not without merit. Perhaps if used in conjunction with a compulsory detox programme it might have an effect. I think though that the criminals would continue to create newer and better drugs. Everyone thought heroin was the ultimate drug until crack came along. Even heroin addicts thank heaven they are not addicted to crack. It is not an easy one to solve if it were the problem would have been overcome by now.

Re Post 43 and VS reply in 45.

Somehow what I thought I said in post 43 doesn't seem to match up with what VS thought I said in post 45.

Would anyone else chip in on the matter?

Michael

VS- You say: "I do no believe in the absolute sovreignty of the will of the individual [sic]. I think in a democratic society we can from time to time make laws that prohibit certain actions of individuals as dangerous to society as a whole."

And in what way is prostitution dangerous to society as a whole? Are you aware that this is the same argument used by fundamentalist evangelicals to ban gay marriage and to restrict homosexuality by whatever means they can, legislatively? Let me ask you this: has prostitution proved dangerous to you, personally?

Your language is that of a social engineer. Social engineering involves the belief that it is appropriate, desireable and necessary to screw around with a free society to achieve a certain set of aims (which, by necessity, not everyone agrees with). If I may be blunt, VS, I'm going to spend the rest of my life fighting that philosophy. :-)

JW

This posting from you seems rather myopic; everyone here is for social engineering, call it what you will;

The only difference is that some have Christian, humanist or liberal agendas.

I rather surprised at you John. I find it a bit worrying when intelligent people cannot appreciate that everyone has their own bias.

I really smacks as a type of ideological fundamentalism that thinks only it possesses the absolute truth.

I would say this poses the biggest threat when the individual holding it cannot see it, maybe.

PB

PS John, I appreciate there is a lot of liberal prostitution in the US. But there is a lot of sex slavery in Europe, using women and children from the developing world. Doesnt a libertarian need to consider the freedoms of these 21st century slaves?

PB- Myopic? Call it basic. Sometimes it is necessary to debate the principales informing one's worldview. Why have you got a problem with that?

You say everyone is "for social engineering"... I'm not.

You say you "find it worrying when intelligent people cannot appreciate that everyone has their own bias." If you're saying that everyone has their own point of view, it's sort of a redundant point, wouldn't you say? Saying that everyone has their own 'bias' is like saying everyone has a different personality; it's useless mentioning it. If you mean 'bias' in the sense that they are prejudiced at the beginning of an argument, then you will understand why I'm challenging VS's. God, PB; for someone who's calling me myopic...

It isn't until your PS that you actually make a point, which I'll address now: "John, I appreciate there is a lot of liberal prostitution in the US. But there is a lot of sex slavery in Europe, using women and children from the developing world. Doesnt a libertarian need to consider the freedoms of these 21st century slaves?"

Absolutely. A libertarian position is that individual actions should be free from the coercion of others, as long as those actions do not themselves infringe upon others' individual actions. I have no problem outlawing slavery: a libertarian position demands it. In fact, let me be even clearer: the same principle that demands that prostitution be legal.... (stay with me PB) ....is the exact same principle that demands that slavery such that you describe be illegal. Exciting, isn't it???

Does that answer your question?

#49 John speaking:

"I have no problem outlawing slavery: a libertarian position demands it. In fact, let me be even clearer: the same principle that demands that prostitution be legal is the exact same principle that demands that slavery such that you describe be illegal. Exciting, isn't it???"

No. Not exciting - confusing.

I am a slave to prostitution.

Which law helps me here?

Peace,
Maureen

and John

Would you care to enlighten us dunces as to how you could do that in a legal framework which could discriminate between those under coercion from the mafia and those that are happy to do it?

What percentage of prostitutes would you estimate are really happy doing what they are doing and what support would you put in place for those that arent?

Or would you tend to sacrifice any that would prefer out on the altar of liberatrianism?

Those that are happy doing it can obviously continue doing it. But I am very concerned that you seem much more interested in defending your personal ideology that making a case for rescuing slaves.

I havent seen you do that yet.

PB

PB.

do you think John's proposal would be an improvement on the current situation or not? I do.

John,
You misunderstand me, I would not try to ban prostitution (impossible anyway) - I see it as socially undesireable but not seriously dangerous. Drugs are another matter. I could never be in favour of the free availability of hard drugs. I think it is fair for a govt to legislate to prevent a free market in hard drugs.

Your emphasis on the supremacy of the rights of the individual I fear neglects the duties a citizen also has. The state must ensure an equality of opportunity for all its citizens or any talk of individual rights is nonsense.
I also I see a large degree of inconsistency in your position John. You appear (from another post) to support the Death Penalty but surely that is the ultimate unwarranted legislative intrusion into the rights of an individual.
What's your position on the Patriot Act BTW?

PB- I'm sorry, I didn't understand anything you said in post 51. I thought I already made it clear that my proposal outlaws slavery of any kind (how can someone be free if they are slaves?) and would simultaneously make prostitution legal (how can one be free if they are not permitted to use their own bodies and their own money as they see fit?). This is all to do with freedom from coercion, and the same principle ensures both. Coercion by government (eg. prosecuting prostitutes) is equally as morally undefensible as coercion by slavedrivers (eg. using intimidation to keep women in prostitution).

Maureen- You ask an interesting question. "I am a slave to prostitution. Which law helps me here?" It depends what you mean by a slave. One cannot be a slave to one's own free choices; by definition those are one's own choices. When we say that one is a 'slave to alcohol', for example, we're making the analogy to help us understand the power of alcohol on that person. But if the person is drinking the alcohol themselves and someone is not forcing them to do so, we still rightly regard it as their own choice. Same with prostitution. If one is, in the political sense, a slave to prostitution, there will be someone forcing them to do it, perhaps by intimidation or at gunpoint or under threat of physical harm. If one is merely using the word 'slave' descriptively to say that they now rely on the money they make from prostitution, their actions are rightly regarded as the result of their own choice in the matter.

You're asking the question of how my proposal would solve the issue of being a "slave to prostitution." I'm still not sure exactly what you mean by that (of the two options above). But it's worthwhile asking the question of how any current law solves the issue either. The problem of how to remove from people the products of their own bad choices has always been with us in politics, and I think the basic, brutal answer is that we could not and should not do so. For moral and practical reasons, it is both right and necessary that people live with their choices, good and bad.

VS- I don't support the Patriot Act. It's an unwelcome infringement of the rights of Americans to which the government should not have had recourse.

The death penalty is something libertarians disagree on. I don't want to get into it here, but a citizen must, of necessity, compensate for their own infringements of others' liberty, and the ultimate infringement of liberty is to purposely take the life of another. The argument then goes that their compensation must be a charge up to and including the death penalty. It's a complicated topic and I certainly won't wrangle about it in this discussion- we've enough to contend with! But it's sufficient for now to point out that I'm not entirely convinced either way yet, and that I don't expect you will need to judge my consistency on my position on the death penalty.

John

Let me ask the question again, what would you suggest we do to protect prostitutes who hate what they are doing but are enslaved by pimps and or mafia?

For example, many eastern european girls and women are tricked into coming to europe, they think to work as waitresses nannies and housemaids.

But when they arrive their traffickers rape and beat them and force them into prostitution.

They are told if they try and escape their families will be murdered; remember the same gangs picked them up in their home towns and know all about them.

Please stop the polemics for a second and explain how your freedom works in practise for these children and women?

How would you actually protect them in the real world?

PB

Are we still interested in legalising prostitution now?