keith-vaz-2
Ethics & Morality

Why does no one care that Keith Vaz’s rent boys might be trapped in sexual slavery?

 

That the married MP Keith Vaz pays male prostitutes for sex is a “private matter”, according to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. That he engages in unsafe sex, uses legal drugs but encourages and facilitates and the acquisition of illegal drugs, is apparently of no consequence. That he chairs the influential Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, which deals with national drugs policy and reviews laws on prostitution, is seemingly irrelevant. “It should be treated as a private matter,” Mr Corbyn said, quite incredibly.

But suspend your incredulity on that matter for a moment: give Mr Vaz his personal privacy and Mr Corbyn his frivolous sense of political morality. Please don’t fill the comment thread below with the rights and wrongs or ins and outs of gay sex. Really, please don’t. Instead please ask yourself why no one is apparently concerned with the welfare of the young Romanian men who engaged in sexual activity with Keith Vaz. Why is no one questioning whether they are trapped in the sex trade, forced to sell their bodies to sleazy old men in order to eat and drink or pay for the next line of coke? Really, who would want to have gay sex voluntarily with Keith Vaz?

So much is spoken and written about the women trapped in sexual slavery, exploited by pimps, beaten in darkened rooms, abused, betrayed and defiled day in, day out. There are inquiries, reports, protection schemes, hostels and rehab programmes to help these poor women. Certainly, some choose to be prostitutes, but many more are forced into a life of empty sex and a soulless existence. Society and media are concerned about such vulnerable women. But the boys and young men? If you’re from Romania, unskilled, jobless and alone, you may well find escape in aerosol fumes and a line of coke. Where do you go when you’re abandoned? Where do you sleep? How do you eat?

It may be that Keith Vaz’s male escorts really fancied a corpulent washing-machine salesman called Jim. It may be they they really do what they do because it’s exactly what they want to do. But it’s not very likely, is it? Come on, be honest. Even if their chosen profession were prostitution, Keith Vaz would hardly be their ideal look, would he? Even if there has been no illegality in this arrangement, is it not the case that the consensual selling of sex is not always ethically consensual?

Young men in their teens and early 20s have to cope with an awful lot. All their hopes of money and dreams of home and family get kicked by reality. Many kill themselves, but we don’t really talk about that. Some do drugs; others just cry themselves to sleep, if they can get there. A few might roam the streets and hang around dark parks waiting to earn a bit of money, but don’t assume they’re not terrified and filled with self-loathing.

Perhaps Keith Vaz’s male escorts hated every second of their encounter with him. We don’t know, because no-one is asking. Perhaps they’d lie, anyway. We don’t know, because no-one is asking. But young men over the age of consent can be as vulnerable as young boys: the sexual exploitation of children doesn’t stop the day they reach 16. Rent boys are called boys whatever age they are, and you don’t see many Keith Vaz’s age, do you? He’s a bit past his sell-by date, as his rent boys soon will be.

You can’t call it child abuse: there is no allegation that Keith Vaz is a paedophile (or, more properly, pederast). But the sexual exploitation of young men is every bit as serious as it is for young women. It only takes young men in their 20s to meet clients who want young men in their teens for the seriousness to grow. “I’ve got a mate,” they say. “He’ll do it, no problem, if the money’s right.” And so they get younger behind closed doors. And then younger.

What if Keith Vaz’s male escorts actually started their ‘careers’ at the age of 12 or 13, when they were passed from pillar (or pillow) to post in a paedophile ring? What if they got addicted to crack cocaine, and trapped in a cycle of having to raise money to pay off suppliers or fend off thugs. Who are their families and friends? Where are their mothers? Do their parents know their sons are being abused and having illegal drugs bought for them by a predatory powerful politician?

It’s sometimes hard to see hot young men as victims: no doubt Keith Vaz will insist his rent boys were ‘up for it’. So this is a question of personal morality, free choice and autonomy. But think for a moment, and remember back to your late teens and early 20s. You thought you were a man, and you were certainly that outwardly. But you felt the loneliest and most vulnerable boy inwardly as you struggled to find yourself and forge an identity. You did some silly things, and some damned stupid things. They might even have been sexual things, secret violations, taboo. Perhaps not for commercial gain: that would have been too far for you, or quite unnecessary. But not every young boy has your sense of probity or strength of character.

Many young men who advertise as escorts or admit to being sex workers are wounded souls, often from abusive institutions or loveless homes. Some of them aren’t actually homosexual-orientated at all: it’s just what they know from what they’ve tried out. Sexual abuse breeds sexual abuse, which suppresses the revulsion and represses shame. You may shout that Keith Vaz has every right to pay young men for consensual gay sex and that this is just the ‘homophobic’ rant of a bigoted Christian ‘hater’. You may cry that this was a Daily Mirror ‘sting’, so the corruption, abuse and guilt are theirs.

But how many young men has Keith Vaz used and abused (for unprotected sex is, indeed, abuse) about whom we know nothing? Were they slaves to circumstance or victims of injustice? Were they passive malakoi or instigators of porneia? How many have since killed themselves? How can it be wrong to probe, to ask a question, to raise a doubt about Keith Vaz’s morality in this regard? How is it bigoted or homophobic to ask, quite simply, whether these rent boys were vulnerable crack addicts, at risk of exploitation? How is it wrong to wonder whether their choice was free or informed? Why is it a “private matter” if a powerful and influential politician seduces young men and shatters young lives just to feed his corrupt ego and satisfy his lust?

  • Dreadnaught

    Of course the status of the ‘rent boys’ is of concern, as it is for young women in the same circumstances but we are dealing with Hypocrisy in the extreme, in the case of the oleaginous Vaz and without doubt, he is nor alone in his chosen ‘profession’ as a multiple standards politician. I doubt if he was the first customer of these young men, if indeed men they are. If they are under age, then of course it becomes a serious criminal offence.
    The fact that the Mirror suckered him in is not important; it must have had a prior foundation for suspicion.
    This issue should indeed be used to draw attention to the dangers, abuse and absurdity of the free movement of individuals principle being used to further people trafficking within the European States.
    Vaz is not the first or will be the last to bring discredit on the position to which they have been elected.
    Good riddance.

  • The Explorer

    “A private matter.” What Mr Vaz does as a private individual may be a private matter. But what the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee does is not a private matter. What the Chair does will influence what the Chair believes, and what the Chair believes will influence the policies that emerge, and the policies that emerge will impact on the general public.

    This may seem too obvious to need stating, but is clearly not obvious to senior politicians.

  • IanCad

    Is there a pestilence in the water around Leicester? Will this give the accusers of Greville Janner something to get their teeth into?

  • The Explorer

    Unless there’s disproportionate reporting, I’m starting to find it very hard to believe that only 3% of the population is gay. As a straight, I’m starting to feel like part of a minority group.

    • magnolia

      “Unless there’s disproportionate reporting…”

      That HAS to be irony. The papers that used to be neutral got taken over. I took one for decades only to find a certain agenda had taken over and it was no longer a reliable news source. Nowadays you have to scavenge across a wide number of media to find something approximating accuracy.

  • HedgehogFive

    Another member of the “great and good”:

    Sex, drugs and rock’n’roll … I want it all. Why Borat walked out on Queen movie

    The Times, 28 July 2013

    Sascha Baron Cohen, who was to play the singer in a film, pulled out because the singer’s estate would not allow the actor to portray Freddie Mercury as a consumer of rent boys.

    • Dreadnaught

      Quite right too, can’t stand SBC… The rent boy aspect should die with the man himself; his music and performances lives on which is what he was famous for.

      • Anton

        In which case what is the point of a film about him, whoever gets the part?

        • Dreadnaught

          The point of any film is to make money. Isnt that obvious? You must lead a very sheltered life.

          • Martin

            That’s the point of pop music as well.

      • HedgehogFive

        The Hedgehog is not so offended by Mr Mercury, who was certainly great in his field. But if the allegation is even half true, then Brian May, who portrays himself as good, would have been well aware of what was going on.

        • Dreadnaught

          Not another ‘third person’ speaker ! What is it with you guys?
          What have you got on Brian May that makes if other than ‘good’?

          • HedgehogFive

            But judging by comments on newspaper articles, he does wind a lot of people up with his attitude.

          • Dreadnaught

            Pass on the gossip and you wreck your own credibility.

          • HedgehogFive

            I made a faux paw there. I actually meant to reply to magnolia, in connection with Mr May’s championing of hedgehogs. It’s his pompous way of talking I was referring to.

            On animal issues, he comes across as regarding badgers as more important than the human masses.

        • magnolia

          I thought he was a champion of you hedgehogs?

      • Martin

        Or infamous. Why this attention given to second rate pop music performers?

    • The Explorer

      If he didn’t consume rent boys, then to portray him as doing so is wrong. If he did consume rent boys, then to portray him as not doing so is equally wrong.

  • Martin

    And so the permissive society is seen to be permissive for only some. Sin always harms and the sin of sex, for entertainment, outside the marriage of one man to one woman harms the weak and vulnerable as well as society in general. Such is the whirlwind reaped.

  • Malcolm Smith

    People need to be reminded that just because something is legal, it doesn’t mean it is right. There are plenty of immoral actions which have never been against the law because they cannot easily be enforced in a manner that does not place too many restrictions on legitimate activities. But people who are publicly immoral should expect social sanctions, such as, for example, shaming and ostracism. And they definitely should not be permitted a position where they can influence public policy.

  • The Meissen Bison

    Why is no one questioning whether they are trapped in the sex trade,
    I’m uneasy with the word “trapped” – there is little evidence of coercion here and I am not convinced that the default position should be that these individuals -like any others – bear no responsibility for their fate. Young Romanian men have choices, including the choice to remain in Romania and never meet Keith Vaz.… forced to sell their bodies to sleazy old men in order to eat and drink or pay for the next line of coke?The next line of coke is hardly a prerequisite for living, now is it? Would the urge for a Ferrari justify a life of crime?Really, who would want to have gay sex voluntarily with Keith Vaz?Pass

    • There are any forms of ensnarement. Perhaps you should read around about how these criminal gangs operate. Family and loved ones in their countries of origin are threatened. Impossible debt is accrued. Drug addiction is imposed.

      • magnolia

        And sometimes those abused in children’s homes went on to become male prostitutes to feed the habit they had picked up to try to obliterate the pain and the bad memories. Often also committing suicide as well.

        Revolting fishing in murky waters with no real care for the past present or future of the “sexual partner” concerned. And some have the psycopathic nerve to call it love or fun.

  • Forgive me for my thought as this was aired on the News at Ten.

    As chairman of the enquiry into prostitution were the charges claimed on Parliamentary expenses – all in the line of research, of course?

    In my defence – it is consistent with some of Vaz-elines past pecadillos!

  • Ivan M

    A very loathsome man. A nominal Roman Catholic he had no business calling for the Satanic Verses to be banned in the UK.

    • Dreadnaught

      I did not know that. It should have been obvious given his constituents are majority Asian origin.

      • Ivan M

        It shows what a shameless opportunist he is. I can understand a Muslim calling for a ban on the Satanic Verses but he is a Catholic and on top of that he had to know that Salman Rushdie’s life was in danger from the mullahs.

        • He’s a disgusting specimen of humanity.

    • chiaramonti

      Very nominal. It is an indication of the depths to which we have sunk in this society that anyone can even begin to defend this individual. The sexual activity apart, it is quite clear that he was more than willing to allow an illegal class A drug (which he has previously condemned as very damaging to individuals and society) to be conveyed to his flat on the basis that he was willing to pay for it. He is very fortunate that it never arrived. Had it done so and had he paid for it he would have committed the offence of being concerned in the unlawful supply of a class A drug. But that is not to the point; he is clearly unfit to continue as an MP when the evidence shows he was more than happy to break the law and that is pure chance that he didn’t. The fact that he stated he did not want it for himself is entirely legally irrelevant.

      • Ivan M

        He is a deeply depraved man. A man may fall due to deplorable weakness for beauty, but him telling the prostitutes to bring their own poppers shows him to be an utterly amoral utilitarian. I don’t understand the point of living like this.

    • chiaramonti

      Very nominal. It is an indication of the depths to which we have sunk in this society that anyone can even begin to defend this individual. The sexual activity apart, it is quite clear that he was more than willing to allow an illegal class A drug (which he has previously condemned as very damaging to individuals and society) to be conveyed to his flat on the basis that he was willing to pay for it. He is very fortunate that it never arrived. Had it done so and had he paid for it he would have committed the offence of being concerned in the unlawful supply of a class A drug. But that is not to the point; he is clearly unfit to continue as an MP when the evidence shows he was more than happy to break the law and it is pure chance that he didn’t. The fact that he stated he did not want it for himself is entirely legally irrelevant.

  • Anton

    Another triumph of the EU’s open borders policy?

    • sarky

      Silly comment. As you well know the majority of sex workers, male and female, are trafficked. Borders, open or not, are not the issue.
      How about compassion not judgement for a change.

      • Anton

        Political problems require political solutions. Compassion motivates political solutions that minimise misery. I made no mention of Vaz nor criticised the rent boys in the story, so who do you think I was judging?

    • Inspector General

      Good comment. Sarky is just an arse…

  • Orwell Ian

    Apparently Vaz is to be reported to the Commons Standards Committee. One might be forgiven for wondering why such a committee still exists in these days of unbridled promiscuity when the sexual activities of politicians are seen as a “private matter”
    This matter is anything but private. There are clear conflict of interest issues. The Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee which investigates drugs, prostitution, exploitation and policing of these has allegedly been using rent boys. And it gets worse, as a member of the Privy Council with access to state secrets how long has been open to blackmail by people traffickers, foreign agents etc? Investigation into his activities is very much in the public interest and I hope that it will include a through investigation into collusion in sex trafficking and slavery.

  • sarky

    With regards to the title, people do care. Currently it’s all about Mr Vaz’s dramatic fall from grace. Once the dust has settled I’m sure these events will help to highlight the plight of those in and trafficked into the sex trade in this country.

  • carl jacobs

    The sexual revolution made the normalization of objectified sex partners inevitable. After all, if the penultimate purpose of sex is personal gratification, then the other person (or persons as the case may be) involved becomes nothing more than a means to achieve sexual pleasure. The prostitute is just the commodification of that attitude – which is why it was traditionally stigmatized. But we are enlightened now. We can’t stigmatize prostitution without questioning the fundamental premise of the sexual revolution. Sex is no longer about a relationship with another. It’s a solitary quest of the self. The relationship between sex and marriage is held to be incidental. The relationship between sex and family formation is held to be incidental. The relationship between sex and children is held to be incidental. There remains only the self-absorbed quest for the transcendental orgasm as sacrament to the modern religion of Me.

    What is this man’s crime? Is it that he is a hypocrite? Is that all he can be charged with in the Modern West? If he had been open about his predilections, would it have made a difference? Or is his crime simply that he sought to restrict others from doing what he himself did? The indictment here is not that an MP hired rent boys. The indictment is that sexual attitudes have so morphed that hiring rent boys is now considered a private matter of public concern only when private practice and public behavior don’t align.

    • Dreadnaught

      The relationship between sex and family formation is held to be incidental.
      As incidental as inability to conceive or fertilise.

      • carl jacobs

        Or contracept. Or abort. Tell people today that choosing to live a sexual life entails the obligation to form a stable family, receive & raise children. They will howl at you with righteous fury.

        • Dreadnaught

          Deflecting the merit of a reasonable comment to avoid conceding a point is a childish ploy.
          I prefer the word procreation rather than ‘sex’ in any case.
          Your position assumes that everyone is sufficiently equipped to procreate which you well know is not a sound premise. You will assert that its God’s perfidious will to provide the undoubted pleasure that is contained in the sexual acts but deny the joy of parenthood for whatever dreampt-up reason. I would counter that position and use scientific knowledge and expertise to rectify the iniquity of that will (if such were a fact).

          • Martin

            Dreadnaught

            Carl’s point was valid, you attempted to split hairs./

          • Dreadnaught

            Bollox.

          • Martin

            Dreadnaught

            Being a pottymouth does not enhance your argument.

          • carl jacobs

            I didn’t deflect anything, Dreadnaught. My point was about willful childlessness via contraception and abortion. It was you who introduced the red herring.

        • Douglas Fox

          Rubbish.

          • Martin

            Douglas

            Try it, you’ll se that Carl is right.

          • Douglas Fox

            Try what out, married life? I am married, perfectly happily, have been for 24 years.

          • Inspector General

            Just out of curiosity, why prostitution? Or where you last in line to meet the school careers master…

          • Douglas Fox

            No, I have a degree and ran a very successful business but got involved in sex work because I enjoyed it.

            You are very insulting. Are you involved in work you genuinely enjoy or do you work simply as a wage slave?

          • Martin

            Douglas

            Try ‘telling people today that choosing to live a sexual life entails the obligation to form a stable family, receive & raise children’.

            Actually you are one of those, it seems who howl.

          • Douglas Fox

            I’m married to a man. Very stable and happy domestic life, but without the hypocrisy. Once you learn that sex work is indeed work, requiring mental and physical preparation and skills other than sexual, then it is perfectly easy to be both happily married and sell intimacy as a profession. No, we do not have an open relationship before you ask.

          • CliveM

            Snort…………… You really do like to play the ‘rational ‘, ‘scientific ‘ card to justify your lifestyle. It ‘meets where people are at’. It recognises people’s weaknesses. Sin, Sexual morality are simply old fashioned ideas, with no place in your Pagan world.

            Except it’s all a lie. Your life is a lie. Your clients are liars. It isn’t clean, it isn’t honest, it isn’t moral. You live a life of self interest and you don’t care who you hurt or the lives you help destroy. How many of your clients have husbands, wives, partners? How many of them are honest with them about their recreational activities?

            But what do you care, that’s their business, not yours. You are simply providing a service. You can’t be held responsible for you clients dishonesty.

            I’m sure the store owner who sold the gun in the Orlando shooting would entirely agree.

            And your defence? Early Victorians allowed child prostitution! Apart from the fact it was the Victorians who first tried to address this evil (a word you won’t understand), it has no relevance to this article or to you or your clients fetid little lifestyles.

            Your Paganism is meaningless. It’s as selfish as you are. It makes no demands, it’s simply there to make you feel good. If you needed it to, tomorrow it would say something else. It’s simply secularism with a fuzzy feeling and crystals.

            Sex work isn’t work, it’s Prostitution.

          • Douglas Fox

            This evil lol. I do wish you would read a little history. You may then offer something sensible to debate other than your personal loathing, which is amusing but not very informative.

          • CliveM

            So you don’t see child prostitution as evil. Not surprised.

          • Douglas Fox

            Explain where I said this please!

            A child by law is not able to consent to sex and quite correctly so.

            When sex work is pushed underground however the law empowers criminals who will prosper by exploring all those involved consensually and also criminal elements. That’s is why, if you genuinely care about exploitation and about children being exploited, you would support decriminalisation and empower consenting individuals rather than criminals.

          • CliveM

            As you seemed to find the reference to child prostitution as evil amusing, it seems a fair assumption.

            Tell me how legalising adult prostitution will help the problem of child prostitution.

            Also point out where I said I was against decriminalisation. I haven’t made that statement. What I have said is I’m not going to agree to accept prostitution as simply another career choice, with no moral question mark.

            I was in Singapore in business. The tarts where like flies hovering around s;&it. You couldn’t go into any hotel bar without coming across them. And the fat loser business men who employed them, who couldn’t see the contempt in the girls eyes.

            How many were married do you think? I note you don’t address this issue, because this is the fundamental dishonesty of your position. You can’t pass off all responsibility for your collaboration in the deceat and betrayal. This is where the real immorality lies.

          • Douglas Fox

            When you push human behaviour out of sight it becomes easy prey to those who will exploit. That is why decriminalisation of sex work is essential in order to protect both those who choose to work and those who are coerced.

            I personally care little if you like my choices regarding work. I may dislike your choice of work, faith, lifestyle, whatever. The difference I suspect between us is that I am happy to protect your rights but you seem uninterested in protecting my rights.

            As for immorality, well we are back to judging. You do not know the pleasure and satisfaction I get from my job, ( not sexually I would add,) nor do you know why my clients pay for my services. They may be lonely, divorced, seperated, disabled, single, there is a whole range of types of people and reasons for them choosing to pay for sex.

          • CliveM

            I note in your list of reasons, you omitted the ‘cheat’.

            You can attempt to sanitise as much as you want, it doesn’t wash. Avoid addressing this if you want, but it’s there.

            Call this judgemental? I can live with that.

            Your clients may want your services, but they still won’t want you living next door.

          • Douglas Fox

            Thank you for enquiring. I live in a very wealthy neighbourhood with lovely neighbours.

            Perhaps a client may be cheating on their partner, but my job is not to judge, simply to offer a service.

            The reasons why a person may cheat, as you reference it, of course may be varied and complex, which, as previously stated, human sexuality often is.

          • CliveM

            I wasn’t enquiringly.

            I will admit to finding your answers interesting. Especially the tone and grammar.

            You seem to be going more and more upmarket.

            Cheating or lying has nothing to do with sexuality.

          • Douglas Fox

            I presumed you were speaking in the context of sex work in which case the reasons people cheat on their partners are often extremely complex and very much to do with sex and human sexual needs and desires.

          • CliveM

            I note also you don’t answer my question on child prostitution. How will decriminalisation help those who are targeted by men who aren’t interested in adults?

          • Douglas Fox

            I pointed out quite clearly that legally a child cannot consent to sex. Sex with children is illegal now and will remain so under decriminalisation.

            How would decriminalisation help in regard to catching those who sell child sex and use it. Well use your brain.

            The best informants of abuse in any industry are those who use and who work in that industry. If clients and sex workers do not fear arrest they will inform the authorities when they suspect illegality.

          • CliveM

            Snort. Ok, would I be right in assuming therefore that you are aware of these activities, being in the industry, but unwilling to tell the police?

            Or more likely, you’re not aware, which actually leads on to the question, once adult prostitution is fully decriminised, why do you believe that except on the very fringes of it, anyone would be aware or allowed to be aware of the illegal end?

            Anyway this isn’t really the point. Your trying to equate decriminalisation with child protection. You have failed to come up with a convincing answer why this would work. I haven’t actually argued against decriminalisation. I am arguing about the fundamental dishonesty of the trade.

          • Douglas Fox

            Prostitution is alarmingly honest. You pay for a service. No pretence that it is anything other than what it is.

            My awareness of adults wanting sex with children is from the media, I assume, or hope, that is where your information is gathered ?

            I never equated decriminalisation with child protection, only suggested that criminalisation pushes everything into the shadows making it harder to catch and punish the real criminals, that is those indulging in non consensual activities, be it adults or children forced into sex work or indeed any kind of work.

          • Martin

            Douglas

            Only a woman can marry a man, equally only a man can marry a woman. And sex is only legitimate between a man and a woman in marriage.

          • Douglas Fox

            Try reading up on the history of marriage. Marriage is a piece of paper whereby the state recognises the obligations two or more people have made to one another. Marriage has changed to suit the needs of the society which it serves.
            The church was late getting involved in the marriage business and for centuries marriage was celebrated in the church doorway, not even in the church and was certainly not a sacrament. Even later it was for the rich, as far as the church was concerned and that was the reason they got involved, money and power.
            So your statement reveals not the facts about marriage but your own prejudice.

          • Martin

            Douglas

            Marriage is the joining of a man to a woman to create a union between them. It was created by God for the benefit of His Creation. It is not a piece of paper, nor does the state have any saying in it.

            I’m afraid you have a mistaken idea as to what the Church is. It isn’t an organisation, it is the gathering together of God’s people. It doesn’t have a pope, it has no ruler but Christ and no rule but God’s word.

        • chefofsinners

          Or say ‘Rubbish’.

    • Shrewd comments.

      One also notices there’s little mention of the harm this lack of faithfulness will bring to his wife and children.

      Thomas Aquinas made some interesting observations about sex, lust and prostitution. How right he is proving to be.

      http://www.illinoismedieval.org/ems/VOL13/13ch4.html

      • carl jacobs

        The wife and kids? Oh, that’s private matter. None of our concern, donchaknow.

    • The Explorer

      “What is this man’s crime in the eyes of the modern world?”

      In Victorian times, prostitution was illegal and seen as morally wrong. The Chair of a Commission on Prostitution found to be using prostitutes (especially male ones) would have been in the situation of Oscar Wilde.

      But now prostitutes are sex workers, and prostitution is legal. Vaz is not to blame for using them; although the fact of his doing so would have a bearing on his committee’s review of prostitution legislation. But forcing people into prostitution is still illegal in Britain, for the moment. Whether these Romanians were volunteers, or trafficked into their occupation via threats to families back home etc is the point at issue. Not that Vaz used male prostitutes, but which particular prostitutes he used.

      • carl jacobs

        Not that Vaz used male prostitutes, but which particular prostitutes he used

        Exactly so. If the only problem is human trafficking, then the problem reduces to lack of consent on the part of the prostitute. The customer can claim he had no reasonable way to know if the prostitute was trafficked. Why, he might even be able to claim victimhood for himself. The logical solution is to regulate prostitution so that consent is assured. What gets shoved under the rug is that prostitution makes people into a means to achieve an end whether the act of prostitution is consensual or not.

        • “The customer can claim he had no reasonable way to know if the prostitute was trafficked. “

          No longer a defence in British law.

          • chefofsinners

            How did you find that out?

          • Wiki ….

            Prostitution in the United Kingdom

            Customers[edit]

            It is now also an offence to make or promise payment for the sexual services of a prostitute if the prostitute has been subjected to “exploitative conduct” (force, threats or deception) in order to bring about such an arrangement for gain. This is a strict liability offence (clients can be prosecuted even if they did not know the prostitute was forced). Additionally there exists an offence of paying for sexual services of a child (anyone under 18).

      • Aquinas was clear about the immorality of fornication and prostitution (he drew no real distinction between the two) but thought it should remain legal for the “common good”.

        Aquinas saw prostitution as one of the capital vices that wreak the greatest havoc on the human soul and leads to other sins; that it is a sin that threatens the proper rearing of children and by extension threatens the common good of society; and that it violates the natural law and matrimonial union.

        Aquinas was not a theocratic thinker advocating a union of secular and ecclesial powers in one religious figure. Human law is founded on natural law, but they are not identical. Nor is human law an application of divine law in everyday living, since the purpose of human law is the temporal peace of the state and the end of divine law is eternal happiness. Human law cannot punish or forbid all evil deeds. There are some areas of human affairs that human law cannot direct and so it should not meddle with these matters. Aquinas is not troubled by this limitation in civil law because the eternal law can direct what human law cannot. Human law permits certain things to occur in society which it cannot control. However, such permission is not equivalent to approval of such behaviour. This limitation applies to the area of personal virtues and vices. While civil law does forbid certain vicious acts such as murder and theft, and requires certain acts of virtue, such as caring for one’s children and paying one’s debts, it cannot forbid all vicious acts nor can it prescribe all acts of virtue’s.

        Given this goal of temporal peace and order, Aquinas notes that the mandate of human law is to prohibit “whatever destroys social intercourse” and not to “prohibit everything contrary to virtue.” Civil law cannot effect a full internal reform of an individual. An individual in their personal moral life is wounded by original sin and can only be restored by God’s grace. Therefore the coercive and educating power of human law is inefficacious. Aquinas asserts, then, that human law cannot “exact perfect virtue from man, for such virtue belongs to few and cannot be found in so great a number of people as human law has to direct.”

        His general principle, by which the state would tolerate prostitution without approving it, is that human laws “leave certain things unpunished on account of the condition of those who are imperfect, and who would be deprived of many advantages, if all sins were strictly forbidden and punishments appointed for them.” Civil statute should not place too much of a moral burden on its citizens. In the disputed question on evil. God permits evil to exist and in a similar way human law permits some evil to exist in light of the common good. However, tolerance by civil authority does not constitute the commission or approval of the evil act in question.

        • The Explorer

          Profound chap, that Aquinas. And deeply humane.

          • Anton

            God got there first. There is no ban on prostitution in Mosaic Law, even though it is seen as a disgrace.

          • The Explorer

            Profound chap, God. And deeply humane.

          • Anton

            If Christians knew Mosaic Law better then the church would be in a better state – simply because they would understand both God and man much better.

          • Ivan M

            He tolerated temple prostituition. Quite merciful of Him.

          • carl jacobs

            No ban? Tell me. How would one keep the OT law regarding sexuality and either act as or contract with a prostitute? And remember, we have extended commentary from the Lord Jesus on that subject in the NT.

          • Anton

            I am talking exclusively about heterosexual prostitution, which perhaps I didn’t make clear. Homosexual acts are indeed crimes in the Mosaic code, whether money changes hands or not.

            Regarding heterosexual prostitution, you will find in the Law of Moses a prohibition on the daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute, but not daughters of other men. You will not find any ban on men – married or otherwise – having sex with single women who are not virgins. Such behaviour is clearly offensive to God, judging by the tone in which it is referred to throughout the OT – a tone which Jesus repeats – but if you believe that this was illegal under Mosaic Law, please specify chapter and verse.

        • Douglas Fox

          In other words he directed authorities to turn a blind eye to human fraility and it was common for bishops to earn considerable revenues from lisencing brothels. As always the church finds the means to profit from sin. Vey clever, but utterly hypocritical, as always.

    • CliveM

      Thing is we live in a society where less and less matters. Despite all the protests to the contrary, because atheism can’t answer why in a mechanistic, rational universe life matters, more and more people have come to the conclusion that it doesn’t. “You only have one chance at life”. Consequence free sex? Who cares. Abortion? Well it’s all about choice. Euthanasia? We all die one day.

      In a world where nothing matters, as long as no one is hurt, what’s the problem? In this context, does it matter what Keith Vaz does in his spare time? It changes nothing and we still all die and fade to dust.

      This nihilism and atheism go together. It didn’t create sexual hypocrisy, it did create a world where really no one cares much. About anything.

      • carl jacobs

        Shhhh! You might bother sarky. He is busy reading articles on the internet about why religion is ignorant.

        • sarky

          Actually I was reading ‘metal hammer’.

          • carl jacobs

            Beethoven would not approve.

          • sarky

            What’s a st Bernard got to do with it?

          • carl jacobs

            That one wouldn’t approve, either. St Bernards have a keen sense of musical quality.

          • len

            Panel beating info?

        • CliveM

          As long as he’s happy.

      • Douglas Fox

        People care, but are less judgemental, big difference.

        • CliveM

          Ahhh, the judgemental word. Why on earth should we judge about life or the destruction of it, as long as we ‘care’. Actually caring means doing something, actively making a judgement, not sitting on your arse. Pretending to care, but shrugging your shoulders saying ‘but I mustn’t judge’, is simply a con.

          • Douglas Fox

            It’s very easy to judge, much harder to care and much, much harder to empathise and understand. YOU choose the easy path.

          • CliveM

            I think you have, is that people understand too well.

          • Douglas Fox

            No, the problem is others judging others.

          • CliveM

            Please save me from the guff that you don’t. You simply want to define what in your own terms should be judged.

    • Douglas Fox

      Absolute bollocks. Sorry, but what you have written has no bearing to reality. Marriage, relationships are just the same now as before. The truth is that human sexuality is complicated and sex work, and rent boys are sex workers, have always existed to provide a service discreetly so that human sexual hypocrisy can carry on as it always has.

      The commodification of sex, has always existed, perhaps now you could argue that the hypocrisy is better understood and observed more cynically.

      • Martin

        Douglas

        Actually he is right, and you can drop the potty language. The concept of ‘sexuality’ is just a way of working around the fact that sex is for a man and woman in marriage only and pretending that it is an entertainment. It matters not that sin has always been with us, at least since the Fall.

        • Douglas Fox

          Potty language lol. Sin is subjective.

          • Anton

            So murder is OK if you think it is?

          • Douglas Fox

            Is murder consensual ?

          • Anton

            You are touting consensuality as an objective criterion, but you claimed that sin is subjective.

          • Douglas Fox

            No, you suggested that, not me.

          • Anton

            Not so! At 10.45pm on September 5th, a few posts above this one, you wrote: “Potty language lol. Sin is subjective.” I have just copied and pasted that post of yours between the inverted commas in this present post, in its entirety.

          • Douglas Fox

            You are deliberately confusing different things. All sin is subjective because it reflects individual and societal beliefs of particular time and place.

            I referenced consenuality in relation to the subject of this post and your question about murder.

            If at some point religion, society, tradition, supported the individual’s right to kill another, then the morality of that place and time would support that action.

          • Anton

            I am not deliberately confusing two things. I was accidentally confusing them because you were as clear as mud.

          • Stephen Leacock

            By its very definition sin cannot be subjective.

            Therein lies the distinction between ethics and morality.

          • Douglas Fox

            No, therein lies the difference between hypocrisy and truth. What is a sin to you is an expression of freedom and of life to me, while what I may regard as wrong, sinful, to you, I would imagine is acceptable because your God condones it in a book.

          • Stephen Leacock

            Truth, in order to be true, must be true of all.

            If we all have our own individual truths then nothing is true.

            Sin, by its nature, is something which stands beyond human subjectivity.

            You could of course deny the existence of sin, but arguing that sin is subjective, is not IMHO a sustainable argument.

          • Douglas Fox

            “Truth,” begs the question, “who’s truth.” Yours, as interpreted through the fear of sin or truth as the lived experience of flawed individuals, or truth as a reflection of nature, common to all men.

          • Martin

            Douglas

            No, sin is entirely objective.

          • Douglas Fox

            No sin is an entirely subjective notion imposed by societal norms, formed through custom and theology. I’d argue that its primary objective is control through fear by authorities who can impose societal behaviour without resorting to force, although of course, sin is more often than not also enforced by the cruel enforcement of the law.

          • Martin

            Douglas

            No, sin is entirely objective as any failure to obey God. You cannot get more objective than that.

            And guess what, Christians have rarely been ‘the authorities’.

        • Douglas Fox

          No, that’s your personal religious beliefs. Sex has never been about a man and a woman, it has always been about diverse desires, lusts, fantasies. You may prefer to call that inquisitiveness sin, others call it human nature.

          • Martin

            Douglas

            No, that is your personal religious belief. You reject the commands of your creator, you even reject the objective science in order to do as you please.

          • Douglas Fox

            Your interpretation of a creator, not a creator I recognise or worship.
            Science I think you will find is very much on my side. Homosexuality is reflected in the natural world and selling sex is very much part of the human experience. One could argue that marriage itself is legalised prostitution. Women traditionally offering services in return for protection?

          • bluedog

            ‘Homosexuality is reflected in the natural world’ One of the great self-deceptions, and expedient too. It is no coincidence that acceptance of homosexuality as normal, and the derisory belief that ‘marriage’ between same sexes is normal, has emerged following the urbanisation of humanity. Recently it was estimated that something like 54% of the human race lives in a town or city, for the first time in recorded history. Together with this urbanisation comes a detachment from the natural world, in particular a knowledge of the animal world, both domestic and feral. Evidence of this comes from the misguided ban on hunting with dogs, but one digresses. As a rural person, this writer can assure you that he has never seen anything approaching homosexual acts between sheep and cattle, or dogs for that matter. Indeed, you will never see a bull advertised as being descended from a purely male line, shocking as it may be, one understands. Your claim frankly, is bullsh*t.

          • Douglas Fox

            I strongly suggest you open your eyes and observe a little more rather than judging. How do you know I’m not a rural person with strong family ties to the British farming community?

            The documented cases and observations of homosexual behaviour in animals and plants makes that fact beyond doubt.

            I have to admit I always find people who make your arguments amusing. True homosexuality and heterosexuality are rare, most people are far more complex. Homosexual behaviour is no threat to humanity, it is simply another expression of human sexual desire. Humans are complex creatures, especially when it comes to Sex.

          • bluedog

            Well this will be side splitting stuff for you. I’m an acute observer of livestock and I never witness homosexual behaviour. We control the sexuality of farm animals in that the great majority of males are neutered and even in them they do not seem homosexual. All females are joined, so in the event that they are part of a lesbian collective, we’ll never know. Barren females are culled, and they may be barren following birth complications or simply infertile. Again, one never observes homosexual behaviour. It is possible to find transexual cattle known as freemartins but these are very rare. Generally sex is determined by chromosones, XX and XY as the case maybe. In very rare instances there are apparently XXYs. The modern fashion for devising evermore complicated variations of sexuality seems remarkably self-indulgent and irrelevant to the majority of the population who are less confused about who they are.

            ‘True homosexuality and heterosexuality are rare, ‘. What’s this, the true Scotsman syndrome applied to human sexuality? Who judges?

            In an earlier post, ‘One could argue that marriage itself is legalised prostitution.’ Obviously you have never married a woman and have no understanding of the male-female relationship within marriage.

          • The Explorer

            One piece of ‘evidence’ I read for homosexuality in the animal world. With some sea birds, if chicks are orphaned, two adult birds will take on parenting roles. One will guard the chicks, while the other gets food. Sometimes the adults are of the same sex. That’s it; that’s the proof. But there’s no sexual activity between the birds while they are carrying out the surrogate parenting role, and homosexual processes didn’t bring the chicks into the world in the first place. And as for assuming the social role of the opposite sex, some bird species share the responsibility of food provision and nest protection between mum and dad anyway.

          • bluedog

            Thank you Mr Explorer. Our male prostitute friend has yet to advance a single specific case of non-human mammalian homosexual behaviour. He even mentions plants as being homosexual in a post above! In the lower levels of life, sexuality is indeed fluid and species which change sex as they mature (eg some fish) are not unknown. But does this imply homosexual behaviour? No! The relevant order is the mammal group to which we belong, and where sexual identity is without exception, clearly defined.

            His comment that marriage is equivalent to prostitution is deeply misogynistic.

          • CliveM

            There are a few issues he’s unwilling to address.

          • bluedog

            At first it seemed as though NF was just another iteration of Eustace/Linus. But the exchange between the two of them suggests possibly not. However, HJ in an early life on this blog used to run two identities and carry out conversations with himself using the two names. So it can and does happen.

          • CliveM

            I wondered that. But as DF at the moment is limiting himself to the one thread, I thought unlikely.

          • Douglas Fox

            Actually I’ve given links including one which details homosexuality practice by our closest relatives, monkeys.

            Marriage being equivalent to prostitution is deeply mysogynistic lol, why? Throughout history women especially have been sold as property into marriage and women marrying wealthier men who provide them with security in return for companionship and sex is so noted it barely raises an eyelid. Today of course wealthy women marrying younger men is also common. Of course they say they “love” one another, but one wonders if they would be so deeply in love if the older, wealthier partner was not able to provide a comfortable life. Indeed the new norm is noted as being ” serial monogamy.” So please explain why observing the truth is mysogynistic ?

          • CliveM

            Oooh look who’s being judgemental now.

          • Douglas Fox

            You I think.

          • CliveM

            You do?

          • Martin

            Douglas

            You may wish to deny your Creator but you know He exists. And while you may not worship Him you certainly recognise Him.

            Nor is science on your side for, although our fallen and corrupt world may produce the examples you desire they are merely a demonstration of the curse Man has brought upon this world.

            You can argue what you want but you know you are merely seeking to find an excuse for sin.

          • Douglas Fox

            You are relying on dogma not truth, they are very different things although the former claims to be the latter.

            Human sexuality outside your dogma is not a sin and is incredibly diverse and fascinating and reflects nature which is the creation of the creator whom I do not deny, be it a man, woman or neither.

            By acknowledging the diverse nature of human sexuality and accepting imperfection rather than condemning I argue as a pagan that sex offers a profound connection both spiritually, socially and personally within the constraints of consent.

            This does not make sex easy, rather it calls upon the individual to think and consider sex and their sexual nature hopefully within an attitude of positivity rather than fear or negativity.

          • Martin

            Douglas

            So is my dogma any less valid than yours? You don’t have truth, but I do.

            There is no such thing as sexuality, it is merely an excuse and a way of portraying sin as ‘natural’. Nor is sex outside the marriage of one man to one woman simply imperfection, rather it is wickedness. There is no spirituality to it for it is simply lust.

      • The Explorer

        “Marriage, relationships are just the same now as before.” I’m not sure you’re right. It’s like saying 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 were just like any other time because there’s always war going on somewhere.

        Depravity in one form or another may be a constant through history, but it’s not always on the same scale. Couples choosing to cohabit in Victorian times would have been frowned on in a way they aren’t now. I know of modern kids genuinely shocked to learn why Oscar Wilde was put in prison. They don’t get it that values were different then. Byron was effectively kicked out of England for sexual stuff that would hardly raise an eyebrow today.

        • Douglas Fox

          Byron shocked polite society because he exposed it’s vices by being open about his desires. In Victorian times child prostitution was rife, favoured especially among the elite, the aristocrats. Nothing has changed, just little is hidden now.

          • The Explorer

            Your view seems to be that the percentage of vice is constant over time. All that changes is the degree of honesty in admitting it.

            I disagree. Consider drug use. Heroin and cocaine are illegal. There are those who take them anyway, those who wouldn’t touch them if they were legal and offered free, and those who might take them but are deterred by the thought of punishment. Legalise them and consumption would increase because of this third group. So the rules of a society do have a bearing on behaviour.

            The same with sex. Victorian attitudes did not prevent vice, but they did restrict it compared with today.

          • Douglas Fox

            Actually they pushed it underground, under the carpet, which allowed worse abuse to flourish. That is your preferred choice of course, mine is to acknowledge human fraility and ensure that people are informed and have choices and most importantly offered protection from abuse. So, instead of a lottery when taking drugs, Worrying are they laced with rat poison, the taker instead can indulge knowing what they are taking is safe while being informed of the facts about the potential harms.
            Regarding sex work, my objective is that sex workers are safe and have the same protection as any other worker. Not only safe but for that minority of sex workers who indulge either in survival sex work or are coerced, they can access help rather than existing in the shadows, where, similar to your preferred Victorian times, they are easy prey to the unscrupulous.

          • The Explorer

            I expressed no preference for Victorian times; I just said they were different, and the difference had an effect on behaviour. It is absolutely true that legalising drugs would enable quality control, but that wasn’t my point either. My point was that banning them has an effect on the numbers taking them while the ban is enforced.

            Let’s forget examples of time and consider examples of place. A society based on Islamic principles is not the same as one based on Christian principles. A society based on secular principles is different again. Westerners who go to Dubai and want an oral sex competition on the beach, or who go to Saudi and want to drink alcohol in public, find themselves in trouble.

          • Douglas Fox

            In NewZealand where sex work has been decriminalised there has been no increase in the numbers of sex workers, but a dramatic improvement in sex worker relationship with the police and with third parties, some of whom have been taken to court with the sex worker winning.

            Your chewing gun analogy is a weird one because chewing gum and spitting or not spitting out in the pavement is an example of social manners rather than reflectinrg an innate human desire, which sex is. I’d also add that Singapore is a very different society with its own customs and idea of sin. Buddhists and Hindus, for example, are amused by the notion of Christian sin, or and the idea of being a fallen woman ( or man) and the idea of original sin most Buddhists and Taoist’s find extremely amusing.

          • The Explorer

            Of course there isn’t an increase, When experimental, commitment-free sex is so readily available because of the mores of the culture, who needs a sex worker?

            A Martian examining the carpets of a typical British comp WOULD conclude that spitting gum was an innate human desire: at least for British kids.

          • Douglas Fox

            I don’t think you understand the complexity of human nature. Perhaps you should consider sex work, it may widen your perceptions and understanding and empathy.

          • The Explorer

            I think both my comments were profoundly insightful. If people will do kinky stuff for nothing, why the need to pay anyone?

            To counter your New-Zealand example, New Labour, in is wisdom, decided to relax drinking laws by extending opening hours. More availability, less likelihood of abuse. It didn’t work, and we are living with the consequences.

  • Eustace

    For once it’s hard to disagree with the fake archbishop, at least in the general gist of his comments.

    Although they do exist, you don’t find many happy, well-balanced sex workers who’ve made a conscious career choice because they enjoy the work. Generally it’s economic necessity that forces them into it and once involved, their chances of acquiring a drug habit as a coping mechanism are high. It’s a sordid and infernal cycle than can result in long term physical and psychological damage, and this whether they’re gay or straight, man or woman.

    It’s also hard to argue with the principle that we should expect our representatives to be scrupulously honest.

    We had a similar case here in France when Dominique Strauss-Kahn was accused of organising orgies at a hotel in Lille. He wasn’t prosecuted for paying for the services of prostitutes, but rather for putting them at the disposition of invited guests, which would have made him a pimp, a gaolable offensive in France. The orgies certainly took place, but nobody could prove that DSK had actually acted as a pimp, although many believe he did. He was acquitted, but his reputation still suffered a fatal blow when the lurid details of what happened at these orgies were revealed in court. His wife divorced him and his career in politics was utterly destroyed. Nobody’s going to vote for a man who treats women the way DSK is alleged to have treated the sex workers at those orgies. We like to keep the public and the private separate in France, however when extreme and sensational private activities become public and revolt public opinion, it’s almost inevitable that voters will take this into account at the ballot box.

    Seems to me that, like DSK, Vaz’s alleged behaviour has put an end to his career in politics. If he’s done nothing illegal, I don’t see how he can be fired. But he certainly won’t be reelected. If he knows what’s good for him, he’ll resign. If he doesn’t, the media will keep on ravaging him until he does. He’ll bring his already disreputable party into even greater disrepute, further weaken his leader’s position (if that’s possible) and generally make Labour even more unelectable than it already is (again, if that’s possible).

    The sex workers who had sex with him were probably paid a significant sum by the publication that arranged this sting. One hopes they’ll use it to make changes in their lives. As for Vaz, perhaps he’ll hang on for a little while. I don’t know how parliamentary pensions work in the UK, but it may well be that if he slogs on for a few more months or weeks, he’ll get a better retirement pay out. If not, he’d be best advised to leave quickly. The sooner his scalp is seen hanging on a pole outside the offices of the newspaper that did this, the better his chances of rebuilding some kind of life away from the glare of publicity.

    • HedgehogFive

      Perhaps a Vazectomy is in order.

      • Anton

        Vaz Deferens?

    • Douglas Fox

      Rubbish. Do you have evidence that the vast majority of sex workers are not happy? Indeed can you tell me with honesty the demographics of sex work, how many are male, women, Trans, how many work the streets, in brothels, through agencies, are independents? No, you can’t because no such data exists. Instead what YOU rely on is hysteria, prejudice and myth. I’ve been involved in sex work for over 16 years and can reliable inform you that I have never met one sex worker who has been forced. Some who shouldn’t be working, but that is true of every profession.

      • “I’ve been involved in sex work for over 16 years … “

        Provider or recipient?

        • Douglas Fox

          Provider

          • Your experience and those you associate with may not be the norm. Hard to believe in 16 years you’ve never encountered a male prostitute who is not a victim of past abuse, drug addiction or exploitation.
            What’s your story?

          • Douglas Fox

            Both, not that it’s any of your business, unless your paying for my services.
            If you care to look you will find “victims” of all kinds of things in every profession.
            Does trafficking happen, yes, but far more common in domestic service and agriculture, but of course those victims don’t offer the same satisfaction to those out to “save” them.

            I hate to burst your bubble, but the myths of sex work have little relation to the reality. The majority of sex workers have degrees and have worked in the caring professions, according to academic research done by Dr Mai, check it out rather than the lurid takes sold by the lucrative rescue industry. If you want to make serious money from sex work it’s the rescue racket you need to get into.

            I know all about Christian morality and it’s hypocrisy. Paganism reflects human diverse experience rather than imposes rules that more often hurt than help or “save.” As I have said morality and the ideology of sin is always subjective. What two adults do sexually provided it is consensual, is no business of the state and certainly not a sin, whereas the abuse, torture, killing and eating the flesh of fellow sentient creatures, is for me ivery much a sin.

          • The Explorer

            “Paganism reflects human diverse experience.”

            Paganism could involve extreme sexual asceticism. Plato thought the body was the prison of the soul. Vestal virgins could be put to death for falling asleep when tending the sacred fire. Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter to get a prevailing wind for Troy. The Bacchae tore Pentheus to pieces.

            Wonderful, the diverse experience of paganism.

          • Douglas Fox

            Yes and Plato had a great influence upon later Christian theology, especially with regard to the idea of sin.
            If you choose to cherry pick, then the same can be said of Christianity, from its spread through genocide, it’s abuse of scripture to justify torture and murder. I would list references but where to start, there are so many.

          • The Explorer

            Yes, I wasn’t citing the superiority of Christianity (which I didn’t mention). I was pointing out some of the less life-enhancing elements in the diverse experience of paganism. Paganism – whether in its Greek, Roman, Norse or Celtic variety – collapsed because it was inadequate to the complexity of human experience. But hope springs eternal etc, and neo-paganism – which began, I suppose, with Algernon Swinburne – will career along until the wheels come off.

          • Douglas Fox

            That’s your judgement. I’d argue the Christianity spread by the sword, by genocide, torture and coercion. Paganism didn’t collapse because it was inadequate, rather it evolved into Christianity, whose beliefs, rituals and indeed form owes much to classical paganism.

            Society evolves, changes, and Paganism follows those natural patterns. Will it survive? I think so, as it has always done.

          • The Explorer

            I’d certainly agree that Christianity absorbed elements of Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics; although it rejected Epicureanism.

          • Aquinas drew a distinction between what a State can reasonably do to promote the common good. He didn’t believe that in a sinful world the State should attempt to enforce perfection. That’s why he recommended tolerating prostitution because not everyone could master lust and the potential consequences of making it illegal would not justify doing so. In the middle ages, as venereal spread, authorities took a different stance.
            Jack has met many prostitutes during the course of his career. Yes, there are some who are acting independently and making calculated, rational decisions about their work. Are they unscathed? Those who undertake the work for a short period of time and have an exit strategy, may be. On the other hand, Jack has met many who’s lives are chaotic and who are acting under some form of duress. The former are entirely culpable for their immorality; the latter, not so much.

      • Eustace

        “Forced” doesn’t necessarily mean by other people. One can be forced into something by financial necessity.

        Do sex workers make an active choice of career or are most of them merely trying to make ends meet? And what role do drugs play in all of that?

        If someone engages in sex work as an active, conscious and free decision, I can’t fault that. It’s a service like any other and as long as there’s no coercion, I can’t see a moral problem with it.

        The moral issue for me has more to do with responsible citizenship. Do sex workers pay tax on all their income? Do they pay social charges? How about VAT? Do they claim benefits they wouldn’t be entitled to if their sex work income were declared?

        Sex workers defraud the state if they take undeclared cash payment for their services. If they want their profession to be recognised like any other, they need to make the same financial contribution to public finances as any provider of personal services. If they do, and they’re doing their job of their own free will, I certainly won’t criticize them.

        • Douglas Fox

          Sex workers are required by law to pay tax. Some may not, but before condemning them I’d suggest that the illegality, the law forcing sex workers to work alone, placing them in danger, refusing to recognise their choice and refusing to allow them to work together for safety, companionship etc leaves, for me, a big question mark over their moral liability to pay tax.
          Paying tax is an agreement in many respects, where the citizen pays into a system that recognises certain rights. Although being a sex worker is legal everything that would make it a safe and legitimate business is illegal. Sex Workers caught organising for example are heavily fined, jailed and their assets siezed. Banks refuse them accounts and certainly they are refused credit facilities, available to other businesses. The result is that sex work exists within a shadow economy, not through choice, but because of the law and the stigma it upholds and heaps upon the Sex worker.

        • Douglas Fox

          If financial necessity equals force then most of the country are victims. Most of us work, often at jobs we dislike, simply to survive. This is true of your average office worker as of a sex worker, except the sex worker probably is compensated more for their time and indeed have more control of their lives.

          • Eustace

            True enough. We all have to sell something to survive.

            Not all commodities and services are perceived in the same way however. Attitudes towards the sale of sex depend on many different factors, not the least of which are religiously inspired taboos. Our society is still weighed down by many aspects of the religion it used to embrace. Change comes gradually. The gay community can certainly attest to that.

            It may well be that as society is purged of religious prohibition, attitudes towards the sale of sex will change. But we’re not there yet. And until we are, your chosen profession will continue to be controversial and opposition to it strong.

            There’s no reason why you shouldn’t agitate for change. Indeed the more visible you are, the more people will grow accustomed to you and the quicker the change will come. But you have an uphill battle in front of you. Still, if your cause is just and well argued, you’ll get there in the end. The gay community did. The trans community is in the process of getting there. Why not sex workers too?

  • Inspector General

    Don’t take on like this, Cranmer! You’ll do yourself a mischief…

    This kind of thing goes on in this awful world. Didn’t you realise?

    Why should anything be done for these fellows. They are men, aren’t they?

    You see, it is generally accepted that we reach our majority at age 18. That applies just as much to Romanian chancers as it does to everyone else. Assuming they are not mental defectives, at what age would you have it that they can be trusted to live in a state of absentis parentis – 20? 23? 25?

    The Inspector now insists that the authorities deport these prostitutes back to where they belong, before they resort to crime. And toot sweet with it!!

    And as for you Vaz! Politico in flagrante delicto bendo indeed!

  • Douglas Fox

    https://www.facebook.com/SuzanneEvansUKIP/posts/10154400364894534

    The writer of this article has a vivid imagination and has vented their personal fantasies about sex work having bought into the mythology of “the victim.”

    Sex work is work, flexible hours, well paid. Do you have to like someone to have sex, shock horror, no you don’t. I, like the writer of this article, have no idea about the backgrounds of these sex workers, or their motivation for sex work, yet he is happy to indulge a personal fantasy to titivate those who feel morally superior and probably fancy themselves as rescuers of those they fantasise as being exploited.

    Adults, and these young men were adults, having consensual Sex, regardless of money exchanging hands, is no ones business but theirs.

    There is no shady “pimp,” forcing these young men, indeed the overwhelming majority of “rent boys, and men,” are self employed and despite the best contrivance of moralists and the law, usually have networks to provide support and help if needed.

    Regarding the drug aspects, as far as I know that is illegal, but surprisingly common among our elites and rent boys.

    Is he wrong to cheat on his wife? That’s between him and his wife, perhaps she knows his liking for men, she wouldn’t be the first wife to turn a blind eye to their husbands errant ways.

    • Stephen Leacock

      That ignores the negative affects that wrong behaviour has upon society itself, it never affects just one person.

      And the tendency of so many these days to look the other way on drugs is one of the greatest crises in the land, it should not be minimized, particularly when it is a man of his position.

      • Douglas Fox

        Wrong behaviour, according to you. The only people who may be hurt are his family, but that is nothing to do with you.

        • Stephen Leacock

          But of course he interacts with other people, and is one of the subjects of this nation, individual sins add up.

          • Douglas Fox

            Sin, a subjective word of interest only to those who believe. He, like most people may be a hypocrite, but sin! That’s depends of personal belief.

  • Inspector General

    The British police do a sterling job breaking up brothels in the UK and ‘freeing’ the girls who have been lured over here. But as far as one can establish, they have to do it the hard way. Intelligence and surveillance. One has never read of the girls coming forward and blowing the gaff. Why do you think that is? Could it be something to do with them being sent back home for the illegals they are…

    • IrishNeanderthal

      More likely intimidation, I would guess.

      • Inspector General

        Ying Ting Tong told her story to police. “I was promised a job as a PA to a top executive in London. Which is quite good for a semi illiterate Chinese girl from the countryside who is only 16 and whose only knowledge of the world is through smart phones, the WWW, and social media. But within half an hour of arriving at my lodgings, I was told to step out of my knickers. How could they do that to Ying Ting Tong!” Ying Ting Tong then attempts to cry, but doesn’t quite manage it…

        • You are a bloody disgrace.

          Here’s an actual case study from Barnardo’s:

          Linh was 15, when her father discovered that he had cancer. He decided that Linh should be adopted by a woman he had met in Taiwan, who said that she would look after her. But this woman held Linh’s travel documents and flew her to Thailand, to Russia, and on to Europe. She was held in a house in Germany with other Vietnamese people. Linh was told that this was a prostitution business, and that she owed them £10,000 for the cost of being transported from Vietnam. She saw tired-looking young women being brought in and out of the house, and she witnessed an older women being tied down and raped.

          After some time, Linh was illegally transported to the UK in the back of a truck. She was abused by two men en-route, and contracted a sexually transmitted infection as a result. When she arrived in England she was taken to a house and told she had to work as a prostitute to pay back what she ‘owed’. One day Linh managed to escape, by stealing some money and getting on a bus. She was eventually noticed looking very distressed in a bus shelter, and was taken to social services.

          Child victims of trafficking can be unbelievably vulnerable and the fear they experience makes extricating them from the grip of the traffickers extremely difficult. These children need on-going intensive support if they are to have any chance of escaping the terrifying abuse they have suffered. Linh was lucky enough to be able to escape her abusers, and thanks to the specialist help she received from Barnardo’s she has begun to recover and move on from her experiences.

          • Inspector General

            This ends now. No ‘moral high ground’ on this subject…

          • Your moral ground is so low it’s difficult not to ……

          • Inspector General

            You really are a gullible mug…

            Do you REALLY believe Linh’s story? You swallowed the lot, did you? Well, here’s mostly likely the truth of it. Her father sold her into prostitution. Yes, terrible isn’t it. Why did he do it? Then understand how they operate in the Far East. Marriage is not just popular there, it’s essential if you want any standing in the community. Linh’s father had an invitation, but the deal didn’t include his daughter. His bride’s insistence, no doubt. So he divested himself of his daughter, probably a clingy thing who didn’t want to leave his side. And he got paid for it too! It happens all the time in the Far East. That’s how the races conduct themselves there…

          • If that’s true, how does that change Linh’s experiences? Perhaps Vietnamese girls deserve such treatment being from a primitive “race”.

          • Inspector General

            Who said anything about primitive? If they don’t have abortion out there, they’re a damn sight more advanced than we are.

            Incidentally, as you are a sucker for hard luck stories, there’s a fellow around who has some magic beans. But due to ill health, he has to part with them. All he wants is your family cow. Don’t worry if you don’t have a family cow, though, he’ll take your family car instead…

          • They are genuine accounts, Inspector. Do some research instead of feeding your obsession with that other subject.
            Ever heard of the Parable of the Good Samaritan?

          • Inspector General

            It turns out the Samaritans were decent types. Not ALL bad. Now, stick that in your pipe and smoke it…

          • bluedog

            Aren’t most Vietnamese Catholic?

    • Dreadnaught

      It took six of them to nab the guy who nicked Izzard’s pink beret – SIX to take control of a school yard prank!
      Mind you if it had been a black-man in Louisville and not London the net result could have been a lot worse outcome.
      Doncha just love our over stretched PC Plods and their untrammelled zeal in fighting crime on the street.

      • Inspector General

        All the police the Inspector has met, and prison officers from the former Gloucester gaol, have been excellent types, Dredders. If only the apologists for policing that are promoted into the jobs these fellows deserve would allow them to do their work!

        • Anton

          Did you read Coppersblog a decade or so ago? By a bloke who went into the Force to nab criminals, just as he and the public want, but found himself acting as a social worker most of the time. Salutary reading.

          • Inspector General

            No. But one remembers when the Police Federation asked their people how they felt about arming the everyday policeman . Nearly half of them threatened to resign. So, if you want the pussies out of the police force, that is what you do…

  • DanJ0

    It must be galling for a washing machine salesman of Mr Vaz’s reputation to have his dirty laundry aired in public like this.

    • Inspector General

      I say, DanJ0! In a few weeks time you and your pals can google shop and equip yourselves with ‘washing machine salesmen’ outfits. For reasons the Inspector and probably the Hedgehog would rather not know about…

    • chefofsinners

      His wife will be taking him to the cleaners.

    • IanCad

      And you know DanJO, I can’t but help have some sympathy for him. Sure, he’s a cad – or so it seems. The humiliation, disgrace, the utter contempt that is being poured upon him has to elicit some compassion from all of us who call ourselves Christians.
      Sure glad my sins aren’t on show.

  • DanJ0

    All the Romanians I know are engineers, or hand-washing cars for a £5 a go.

    • chefofsinners

      How much for a buff?

    • The Explorer

      How about hand engineers for £5 a go?

      • Ivan M

        Dollar wank! dollar wank!
        — Brian Aldiss recalling Singapore of the 50s..

  • Dudes

    Any one remember Perfumo? He had to resign. And he did repentance at least.

    • IanCad

      John Profumo served his country honourably. As you note, he did acknowledge , and try to amend his shortcomings. His is no valid comparison to Vaz. Besides, his plumbing was right.

      • “he did acknowledge , and try to amend his shortcomings”

        Exactly my point.

        “Besides, his plumbing was right”

        Adultery is adultery ?

        • IanCad

          Adultery is when a spouse resorts to one of the opposite sex. To, after tasting the delights of the created order, then consorting with what is unnatural, surely paints an extra stripe of transgression upon the deed.

        • The Explorer

          Wasn’t the problem that Christine Keeler was sleeping with a Russian spy as well as with Profumo. And since Profumo was Secretary of State for War, and with the danger of pillow talk, there was a distinct security risk.

          • Yes . It was Ian who wanted to bolt on an unnecessary attack on gays/homosexuality into the debate.

          • Ivan M

            Of course Mr Profumo would have had nothing better to do than reveal state secrets to a 16 year old. Anyway if one had to fall, falling for Ms Keeler was worth it.

      • Royinsouthwest

        Lots of men would have been very tempted by Christine Keeler and her friend Mandy Rice Davies if they had the opportunity to get to know them and were able to impress them. That does not make his conduct right but the temptation was understandable. As Explorer noted below Profumo’s behaviour was very unwise given Keeler’s involvement with a Russian agent.

        Profumo resigned because he had lied to Parliament about his involvement with Christine Keeler and not simply because of the affair. Nowadays government ministers have to be dragged kicking and screaming from office. Ordinary MPs such as Vaz, who probably does not consider himself to be “ordinary”, are just as brazen.

        After initially lying to try and save his career Profumo did the honourable thing and resigned. He then started work as a volunteer cleaning toilets at Toynbee Hall, a charity based in the East End of London. Profumo continued to work for the charity for the rest of his life and became its chief fund raiser. As he had inherited wealth all that work was done as a volunteer, in contrast to the “fat cats” running many charities today.

        Will Keith Vaz “go and do likewise”?

        John Profumo
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Profumo

        • Little Black Censored

          At least Profumo was not a pervert, just an old-fashioned fornicator.

    • chefofsinners

      Yes, there was a bad smell around the Perfumo affair.

  • dwmf

    There are indications that Vaz used funds from a charity (Research into Diabetes or some such), owned by the Labour party to fund his foul habits. I have very little interest in where Mr Vaz dips his wick, save a few sniggers, but having his fingers in the till is much more serious. This is what should be investigated, and Mr Vaz expelled from the party if found guilty.

  • Saxon

    Misconduct in Public Office?

    • chefofsinners

      It’s spelt pubic orifice.

  • chefofsinners

    Breaking news… Keith Vajazzle has resigned from parliament and been appointed Bishop of Grenthem.
    Objections have been raised that he has engaged in heterosexual activity, but the Archbishop of Dingleberry has been assured that Keith’s relationship with his wife is entirely celibate.

    • Inspector General

      His relationship with his wife is probably celibate now. You are a wag, sir!

      • chefofsinners

        No doubt questions are being asked in the house.

    • Sounds like a bizarre episode of downtown abby.

    • Anton

      Is there a vacant bishopric?

      • Shadrach Fire

        No Bishops are vacant in their mind!

      • chefofsinners

        Quite a few of them match that description.

  • Inspector General

    Anyone think that Keith Vaz might now be the victim of an honour killing? Or is that too much too ask…

    • The Explorer

      I thought only women were capable of bringing dishonour?

      • Ivan M

        He brought dishonour to his Asian constituents. That should count for something.

    • Shadrach Fire

      Kieth Vaz may now try to get an illegal passport for himself. To take him where I wonder. No place in this life should have him.

  • len

    Our society is so corrupt now that ‘rent boys’ or those using them for their own sexual gratification are now just seen as’ normal behaviour’.
    We have no way to measure how corrupt our society is any more because there are ‘no absolutes’ no one can be ‘judgemental’ of another its a case now of ‘anything goes’.
    The Media is now pushing a liberal agenda comparable with the worst excesses of ancient Rome.

    • DanJ0

      clear it’s not seen as normal behaviour otherwise this wouldn’t be story.

      • len

        The story is because of Keith Vaz’s position (no pun intended) not his crime(if anyone can work out what crime he has committed in today’s moral climate)

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          If it were seen as normal behaviour, Keith Vaz’s position would make no difference.

    • Dreadnaught

      Its normal for those engaged in such activity – any port in a storm will do sailor.

      • len

        Lust has no bounds ….apparently…

  • wisestreligion

    It is remarkable how our liberal superiors have changed the public morality that is allowed to be voiced by the broadcasters. I believe and hope that most Britons, if not the BBC, would still find Vaz’s behavior disgusting under the old morality.

    On Cranmer’s blog, of all places, are we limited to the progressive morality of Tatchell, Izzard, Corbyn and Cameron? In the case of Vaz, the common ground between time-honoured Christian morals and the transient flimsy new code of righteousness appears to be limited only to the issue raised by Cranmer, of economic exploitation.

    Three “old” sins, which are true sins since scripture teaches us so, are apparently no longer to be regarded as sinful:
    1 Infidelity. Despite having being so keen to muscle in on marriage with “gay marriage”, the progressives don’t think it has to be an exclusive committed relationship – it is entirely up to you. So what now of the assurances of Cameron and the modernisers that we were not seeing marriage devalued? Possibly the highest profile gay marriage is already said to be a threesome, but the Supreme Court will not let us talk about that as the married couple or triple are so rich they can afford an injunction.
    2 Homosexual practices. Good, to be celebrated.
    3 Prostitution. Perfectly alright in a world of commoditized sex.

    And then we have new Sins Against Progressiveness:
    1 Unsafe sex. This is a sin as it threatens sexual incontinence. If people fear unpleasant consequences from promiscuous sex they might have to limit their sexual partners, rolling back the most important freedom of our time. What a dreadful victory that would then be for the forces of conservatism.
    2 Sex with much younger partner. A sin against the cult of youth. The proper sexual partner of a young person is another young person of similar age and either sex.

    I have probably missed a few sins, but that is depressingly enough for now, I think I will go to bed, with my own wife, and read my bible.

    • The Explorer

      If you look through the comments, there are plenty of voices on the thread supportive of the old morality and satirical about the new.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Who has followed who? Where has the morality of our society and our leaders gone? Has society followed our leaders or have the leaders jumped on the bandwagon of immorality. And what role has the media played in all this? Oh, we were only telling it how it is! Yes but they were telling it and others were learning and wanting to try it out. That is where unconventional sex education will take our kids, into a world of experimentation and diversity.
    Lord, deliver us all from this hiatus of morality in our society.

    • David

      Who has followed who ?
      The cultural “leaders” , influencers, opinion shapers, or call them what you will, acting via the immensely powerful communication inventions of the 20/21 centuries have pulled public morality downwards, implementing cultural marxism. The BBC has been the market leader in this slow, generational debasement of our nation. They hate Christianity of course. A similar process has been rolled out across the west.
      Remember that the excesses of one century are often followed by a swing back to a rediscovered higher morality.

  • chefofsinners

    Mankind will go to almost any lengths to justify himself.
    He forgets that God has already gone to far greater lengths to justify him.

    • sarky

      Why would you have to justify your creation? Doesn’t make sense.

      • carl jacobs

        Kaybe you should learn what he means by “justify”.

      • The Explorer

        Look at humanity: Keith Vaz, Linus, Jack the Ripper, Blackbeard the Pirate, Johnny Depp. Could you justify bringing it into existence?

        • sarky

          Well I can justify the existence of anyone (scientifically not morally) However, a so called loving god?

          • The Explorer

            Exactly. God’s got His work cut out.

      • Little Black Censored

        “Justify”, meaning to render somebody just, who by nature or his own efforts could never be just.

  • DanJ0

    about mr vaz being unattractive, some people do go for non-standard types. they’re called ‘chubby chasers’ in the ‘gay scene’, i believe. there are also people who prefer ‘bears’ and ‘muscle marys’. i also recall john prescott had a mistress, despite being unattractive in almost every conceivable way, and he didn’t even have to pay her to nob him, other than perhaps a meal and flowers.

  • Royinsouthwest

    The Guardian appears to be unsure what line to take on the scandal. It has an article where a number of individuals give their views, some for and some against Keith Vaz. One of Vaz’s supporters, Peter Tatchell said ‘there is no contradiction between Vaz’s public pronouncements and private behaviour.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/05/keith-vaz-home-affairs-committee-chair-prostitutes-sex-trade

    Tatchell also pointed out that the use of “poppers” is legal in Britain. They are banned in Canada because they can cause heart attacks, strokes and eye damage. Certain types were banned in France too but when the French government tried to ban all types, like the Canadians do, the courts prevented them from doing so after litigation by sex shop owners.

    Earlier this year the British Parliament attempted to impose a blanket ban on “poppers”. That move was opposed by a gay Conservative MP, Crispin Blunt, who said that he had used poppers himself. The law was passed but in March this year the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs stated that, because alkyl nitrites do not directly stimulate or depress the central nervous system they do not actually fall within the scope of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 and therefore they still seem to be legal.

    Does anyone expect the government to risk offending the gay lobby by introducing a new law that explicitly targets substances of the kind used in “poppers”?

    • len

      What an indictment of a society that is going’ down the tubes’ so rapidly that no one can work our what is’ right’ and what is ‘wrong’ any more.

    • Ivan M

      Excessive use of poppers are implicated in the development of AIDS like symptoms. But the homosexual lobby would rather we ignore that.

    • Inspector General

      Roy. On one occasion prior to mounting Bit Elkland, Peter Sellers took these poppers. It was 5 April 1964. He suffered no fewer than 8 heart attacks over the course of the next 3 hours. He was very nearly carried off by the stuff and was concerned afterwards that he had suffered brain damage which would have prevented him from learning his lines. But as you correctly point out, the Gay lobby in parliament is currently immense…

  • rtj1211

    The fact of the matter is that if you become a prostitute you expect your clients, in the main, to be slightly different from the average, since if they are average, the chances are pretty high they will be in a regular relationship and not in the need of using prostitutes.

    You should never judge prostitutes by their client list. Their client list will, 99% of the time, be oddballs.

    You should also ask, if they are slaves, who got all the money the Mirror must have paid out to get the story. That will have been in the tens of thousands, not the measly £100 or whatever.

    Do you bother asking those questions and, if not, why not??

    • So are you “average” or an “odd ball”?

  • preacher

    I’m afraid the T.V companies bear a lot of responsibility for the decline in moral standards among the young explicit scenes of sex & violence, even before the 9.00 watershed are increasing & lowering the standards of today’s young people.They are being undermined in making moral choices as promiscuity & other deviations are being presented as normal.
    Once a young person is trapped in a particular lifestyle, it is almost impossible for them to escape, the victims often resort to drugs or drink to escape the realities of their day to day living hell, if this combination doesn’t kill them, they will often find a more direct answer to erase the scars they bear.
    If a driver accidentally kills an innocent pedestrian they are prosecuted, why then do the programme makers expect to escape scot free when drug dealers, motorists & the rest of society have to face justice for the wrongs they do ?.

    • dannybhoy

      Wanna know what to do with your life?
      Follow the soaps, catch Big Brother and attend tv seminars with Jeremy Vines or Jerry Springer..

      • magnolia

        Please Jeremy Kyle not our brother in Christ Jeremy Vine!!!

        • dannybhoy

          Apologies!
          I don’t really know who Jeremy Vines is, but you’re right about Jeremy Kyle.

          • Mike Stallard

            Jeremy Kyle:
            A good man.
            Yup, personal life not Christian.
            What he does is to lift the stone which we like to keep unlifted to see what is underneath.
            After several years of watching this man at the gym, I can share these revelations:
            1. Christianity is not in the script in any form whatsoever.
            2. Marriage is out of the script in any form whatsoever.
            3. Men are most often sperm donors. They sometimes ( by no means always) feel that they want to see their children. Mostly not. But their pride makes them defend their rights.
            4. Women are almost completely promiscuous. A one year stand is seen as an achievement.
            5. If either party is on a break, that entitles them to have sex with anyone they like.
            6. Drink plays a huge part as do drugs in a lot of the clients’ lives.
            7. Jeremy Kyle works very hard to promote reconciliation, decent behaviour and standing by children and babies. He also provides care through Graham. He even provides help for alcoholics, drug addicts and people who want to find lost relations – free.
            8. Many of the clients on the show live in a world of raucous shouting and screaming hate.
            When I get home from the gym, I notice that an awful lot of my neighbours, friends and colleagues are touched by this new morality. Aren’t yours?

    • IanCad

      Let me add to that Preacher. It is not just the young. The older are not immune from its corrupting influence.
      A little bad language there; a little more here. Same with violence. Can’t just have a little. We need more. And so it goes.
      First we observe, then we tolerate; soon we embrace.
      Unplug the wretched thing.

      • preacher

        Agreed Ian, it’s worse than some drugs because it appears quite innocuous & the standard answer of ” You can turn it off ” is like telling an alcoholic that all you have to do is stop drinking or a drug addict to stop taking drugs. – Just a fob off excuse !.

  • Stephen Milroy

    Anyone who says ‘mind your own business’ is clearly guilty as sin…

    • davidkennerly

      Mind your own business.

  • Insightful song:

  • Eustace

    Referenda are volatile things. You don’t always get ther result you expect.

    I’m very wary of putting the rights of minorities to a public vote. Had there been a referendum on restricting the rights of Jews in 1930s Germany, who can doubt what its outcome would have been? Democracy can very easily tip over into mob rule when ill-intentioned majorities use it as a cosh to beat up those they hate.

    I think attitudes to sex work are changing, especially among the young, however we’re a long way from full integration. It will be many years before a sex worker can advertise her/his presence with a brass plate on the door in the manner of a phsyiotherapist or dentist. Anything that touches the realm of sex is especially sensitive for Christians with their sacralised vision of what it should be. Muslims too. Indeed most religions have ritualised and try to control the sex act. A lot of their power to manipulate their believers rests on sexual taboo and “right” and “wrong” ways to have sex.

    Sex workers definitely fall on the “wrong” side of that equation. So expect hysterical opposition from the Bible, Qur’an and Talmud thumpers. If sex work becomes socially acceptable, their religions lose even more ground. They’ll fight you tooth and nail.

  • The Explorer

    Thank you.

  • Martin

    Douglas

    And the likes of you have Political Correctness to label people as homophobes and prosecute those who fail to fall in with the perversions of this age. You are just the same as those who burned witches, your dogma as violent and ignorant.