I really don’t appreciate the anti-gender feminist bias, or bias against sex workers. We’re all on the same side, but we need some guidance from the ground, like Elizabeth Pisani’s book, not partisan bickering! But we can’t make assumptions that what works in Bangkok will work in the Netherlands or the US… Pisani knows that, but I fear that some of commenters here don’t…

What we should do, however, is find a way to talk to each other and work together.

Charlie: “What makes you think I don’t already?”

This shouldn’t need spelling out, but in case it does, here goes: supposing that you do write “in your own name” elsewhere, since here you write simply as “Charlie” there is no way for readers to associate the own-name articles with the Charlie-handle “hit and runs”, which are therefore effectively anonymous (and equally are therefore not given any of the credence they might earn from the own-name articles, supposing those to be well-argued, etc., etc.). Get it?

Apologies for using a comments column to make comments

Some of the things you have to say are interesting and I don’t doubt your genuine beliefs. However, I think you may want to think about the ethics of your approach.

It’s very easy to scour the internet and then, from the safety of anonymity, smear and vilify the author. At least Elisabeth has the the guts to publish her opinions in her real name on her own website.

Why not write some original articles, authored in your own name, which can then contribute to the debate, rather than merely carrying out a series of anonymous hit and runs against those who disagree with you.

There is no point restating your jaundiced beliefs about sexuality. I am well aware of the gender-feminist ideology. I simply don’t agree with you.

Your approach perpetuates the idea of women as passive recipients of male sexuality, removes their agency and teaches men and boys to hate themselves.

To say Elisabeth has been ‘skewed by the glamour’ is ridiculous but typical as you always smear your oponents as either evil or naive. Have you actually read Elisabeths’ book? She has spent a large part of her career working with prostitutes in settings VERY far from glamourous.

The difference between you and Elisabeth is that she has actually dedicated her time and energies to working with the women (and men) affected and advocating for them. Whereas you just concentrate on criminalising their customers, removing their livelihood and exposing them to unsafe conditions.

Whilst I would dearly love to waste hours debating your ideology, I fear my time would be better spent correcting a few of the factual innacuracies of your latest post.

The Mayor of Amsterdam is a reactionary policitician elected against a backdrop of tension around immigration in Amsterdam. The right wing in the Netherlands object to the red light district because they say it attracts immigrants. Attempts to close it are motivated by this as much as anything. There has also been a lot of pressure from property developers who would dearly love to get their hands on some prime real estate in the most overcrowded country in Europe. Many believe the mayor is pandering to commerce and bigotry in much the same way that Westminster council tried to evict prostitutes from soho.

The ‘Nordic Model’ has been far from sucessful. There is growing evidence that it has merely moved the phenomenon to neighbouring countries (Denmark) and that the women who remain have been forced to work in much worse conditions. It has had terrible consequences for their sexual health and personal safety. Public support for the approach is now less than 30%.

You represent your oponents as being a well funded lobby for the sex industry. Leaving aside the obvious inaccuracy of this claim let’s look at the finances of the agencies lobbying for the law. The key players are extremely well funded by central government under the laudable aim of providing refuges, housing etc. However, it now appears they have spent considerable time and energy campaigning around sexual politics.

Others reading this may wonder how all this has been achieved. Sadly, the gender feminists now dominate sexual politics in Britain. They ruthlessly control the formal womens movement and eject anyone who does not agree with their sex negative approach. As their agenda has progressed they have also been forced to exclude reputable sexual health and HIV organisations, the gay movement and sex worker agencies – all of whom they now perceive as being a ‘mouthpiece for patriarchy’.

However, the one thing their recent flurry of campaigning has achieved is to motivate others to join together to challenge their prejudiced, dangerous rhetoric.

The pro-prostitution lobby, however, is primarily made up from brothel/agency owners, those ‘high-end’ persons discussed, pimps (sorry, there really is no ther word I can use), and most importantly, consumers of sex. This is widely known. It is quite obvious to me why these profit and pleasure seekers would want to legitimise this harmful trade.

The idea that anyone sells sex willingly neither offends nor shocks me. That is why I am in favour of complete decriminalisation of those who sell sex. There are many complex factors INCLUDING (not limited to) deep rooted and gendered (it would be niaive not to recognise the gendered element of this) opression that drive women to sell their bodies to numerous men that they would not have sex with otherwise. I have come to learn some of these reasons through friends that have ‘chosen’ to sell sex.

I want to see the law protecting vulnerable people AND reducing sexual violence, sexism, sexual discrimination and sexual harrassment for ALL women. With regards to the prostitution element of the wider ‘violence against women’ agenda, the ‘Nordic’ model is the only way to do this effectively by gradually changing attitudes towards buying/renting women’s bodies. Where countries have legalised or fully decriminalised prostitution, both the legal and illegal sectors of the industry have expanded, encouraqing increased rates of trafficking and coercion, including child prostitution and other organised crime. It sends out the message that it is in fact OK to view women’s, girls and boys bodies as commercial entities; an idea that only furthers sexist attitudes and those of sexual dominance (including in the case of rent boys) and violence. In fact last year the Mayor of Amsterdam closed down a third of the red light district after admitting that the ‘regulation’ couldn’t protect the women and that organised crime was rife. Germany have recently begun to review their decision also, in the light of international and domestic obligations to tackle the all important demand for women and girls bodies.

For the few that continue to pursue their profits claiming that they are not affected in any way from their activity, this is fair enough. But they do so to the detriment of all women; if their claims are true then they are at the top of a hierarchy which relies on the demand for commercial sex and the abuse of those lower down the chain to exist, and unfortunately very often, taking money from the husbands, fathers, partners, families of other women and children. I understand the different circumstances involved, but for me, the price paid by the majority is just too high.

There exists a ‘madonna/whore’ complex among men and within masculinity (they all admit it quite openly to me, out in that real world!) Does an equal and just society consist of the belief that a group of women, girls and rent boys should be set aside to service men for cash whenever they feel like it?