Thread: Aid workers and prostitution Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020471
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Lots of things have been written recently about Oxfam workers and Haiti, specifically about investigations and individuals being fired. The British government seems posed to use this as a stick to beat Oxfam - and some are using it as a reason to attack the whole idea of aid and development.
The problem is that it isn't just Oxfam and I've heard statements from workers for many years that field placements are rife with sexual exploitation.
I think I've mentioned before that I was told that the head of a Christian NGO was well-known for being involved in various disgusting things, but was said to be untouchable. As I said before, the person who told me was fearful and gave few details and I was not in a position to dig further.
What is there to be done? What a mess.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
It's not helpful that yesterday's Daily Mail headline used the scandal as something of a stick to bash all foreign aid.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The Daily Mail rarely (if ever) helps.
This perspective from our own Dave Walker is much more helpful.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Sexual abuse and exploitation is found in every area of life, that aid agencies are not immune from the same problems (including the cover ups) shouldn't surprise anyone.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sexual abuse and exploitation is found in every area of life, that aid agencies are not immune from the same problems (including the cover ups) shouldn't surprise anyone.
and indeed the very power differentials that are present in Aid - together with a lot of work being done by expats who are temporarily removed from their home legal environment is likely to exacerbate the entire thing.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sexual abuse and exploitation is found in every area of life, that aid agencies are not immune from the same problems (including the cover ups) shouldn't surprise anyone.
I think it is different because aid workers are in such a position of power and the people they're engaging with are so weak.
The aidworkers are far from home, have limited supervision, have western salaries and few journalists around to see what they're doing (and to be fair, I've also heard stories about bad journalist behaviour in disaster areas).
It's arguably a secondary (but a disgusting, unacceptable one) result of the amounts of cash that slosh around, particularly after disasters.
Of course, there is also an issue about the difference between "aid-work" verses "disaster relief" and I'm not entirely clear that this problem is solely in the latter rather than the former scenario.
The DM can jump off a cliff but these reports are clearly worrying and add to the pile of problems to assess when donating to charity. There is the phenomena of A-list celebs jetting in and out of disaster areas. There are issues with regard to effectiveness and duplication and corruption.
I too think that aid is important and am proud to live in a community that is aware of its responsibilities. But I don't know that these problems can simply be swept under the carpet nor am I sure how to determine which of all the competing tugs on donations are worth supporting.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The aidworkers are far from home, have limited supervision, have western salaries and few journalists around to see what they're doing (and to be fair, I've also heard stories about bad journalist behaviour in disaster areas).
I've also heard plenty of stories about expats in poor countries behaving badly - the dynamic is much the same.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
There was an interview from someone who is part of the Charities' Regulator on yesterday's R4 Today Programme, at 1:09 to 1:15, querying how much safeguarding and scrutiny happened and a second clip talking to Andrew McLeod of Hear Their Cries and Kevin Watkins from Save the Children about issues within the whole sector, starting at 2:09. The second clip suggests that "predatory paedophiles" are using work in the charity sectors to enable and hide their activities.
The Charity Commission did not check Oxfam's dossier, just accepted that the issue had been resolved.
In the second clip, there was an acknowledgement that the sector has been aware of sexual predators using charities for 30 years. Save the Children pass their files to the police, both in the country of origin of the worker and the country where the offence happened, when they find malefactors, apparently Oxfam does not follow this policy. Child sex tourism is an international crime.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The aidworkers are far from home, have limited supervision, have western salaries and few journalists around to see what they're doing (and to be fair, I've also heard stories about bad journalist behaviour in disaster areas).
I've also heard plenty of stories about expats in poor countries behaving badly - the dynamic is much the same.
Tourists are notorious for behaving worse abroad. One is hidden, in a sense.
I wonder, with aid workers, if the idea that they are doing good is not also an excuse to do bad. This isn’t an uncommon psychological phenomenon.
Nothing will prevent this from happening, though better control can reduce it. There will always be abuse. We are a horrible species.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The second clip suggests that "predatory paedophiles" are using work in the charity sectors to enable and hide their activities.
Of course they are. Any position that facilitates abuse will attract abusers. But I think the relative obscurity also draws out abuse from those who might not have done so had they been home.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Anyone want to argue that there is something different about going to (adult) prostitutes and other sexual misconduct in this scenario?
I don't for a range of reasons but I'd be interested to see if anyone wants to defend aidworkers going to prostitutes.
Posted by DonLogan2 (# 15608) on
:
During my stint with the armed forces going to prostitutes was par for the course for some. One of these guys also admitted to me that during the 70`s he was on disaster relief in the windies and had used food for sexual favours.
I think it is a mindset for some males, whether it is nature or nurture that makes them think it right is another matter
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Journalists based overseas OTOH are impeccably behaved.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Anyone want to argue that there is something different about going to (adult) prostitutes and other sexual misconduct in this scenario?
I don't for a range of reasons but I'd be interested to see if anyone wants to defend aidworkers going to prostitutes.
I think prostitution is illegal in Haiti? So it's wrong and should be condemned for that reason.
But where (adult) prostitution is not illegal I can see a big difference - it's not the same as child abuse or exploitation (except that I can see that some would want to describe it as exploitation). Note: prostitutes can be either female or male, of course.
Having traveled and lived overseas I have witnessed those who fall to the temptations that come with being away from the home environment: for example, I've been aware of male prostitutes available to young American women and, in another place, sexual goings-on between local men and women and members of the British military.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Because I think the sex trade is essentially exploitive of sex workers, making use of the services of sex workers is supporting that exploitation. So I think it's wrong for that reason. But it's not the same as direct sexual exploitation of people they are there to help. That is direct abuse of power. The other is colluding with exploitation.
The net result of this will probably be a reduction of aid contributions, at least for a while.
Agencies are going to have to get their safeguarding act together very quickly. Screening processes and local management trusted too much and have paid a big price. But the biggest price continues to be paid by the by the needy.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I think prostitution is illegal in Haiti? So it's wrong and should be condemned for that reason.
But where (adult) prostitution is not illegal I can see a big difference - it's not the same as child abuse or exploitation (except that I can see that some would want to describe it as exploitation). Note: prostitutes can be either female or male, of course.
OK. But even if one thinks prostitution isn't necessarily undesirable in the abstract, surely in a disaster situation the chances of exploitation (and/or desperation) must be many times greater than in (let's say) an ideal Western scenario.
So one can, presumably, think prostitution is generally fine but still find this extremely problematic.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Journalists based overseas OTOH are impeccably behaved.
Wrong. There was no need to include "based overseas".
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Anyone want to argue that there is something different about going to (adult) prostitutes and other sexual misconduct in this scenario?
I don't for a range of reasons but I'd be interested to see if anyone wants to defend aidworkers going to prostitutes.
Nope.
The adults in a disaster zone would be vulnerable adults by anyone’s standards.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
sexual goings-on between local men and women and members of the British military.
Given the particular political leanings of those making most noise out of the Oxfam scandal, I doubt if they'll address this particular angle.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sexual abuse and exploitation is found in every area of life, that aid agencies are not immune from the same problems (including the cover ups) shouldn't surprise anyone.
But I don't know that these problems can simply be swept under the carpet.
I'm certainly not advocating that we sweep anything under the carpet. But, neither should we blow things out of all proportion.
Aid agencies have a duty of care to those they serve, to their own staff and volunteers (and, I would expect there would be sexual abuse and exploitation of junior members of staff, as well as of members of the community they are there to help), and to their donors. Clearly that would include internal discipline, and involvement of police as appropriate, when abuse is reported. Clearly in this case Oxfam failed in that if, as is reported, there was illegal activity that was not reported to the local police as well as UK police (if it involved children, or otherwise broke UK law) and there was inadequate internal discipline. Of course, we're still working on partial accounts and it's unclear exactly what happened.
On the other side of that is that I'm certain that aid workers do considerable good. Although it would be far better if aid workers didn't cause harm by sexually exploiting the vulnerable, the greater good aid agencies do is reason enough to continue to support them.
Plus, of course, those who are screaming the most about these events are often the same people who highlight how much money given to charities is "wasted in administration" - and, safeguarding is an administrative cost. And, also in most cases don't exactly have clean hands with regard to sexual abuse within their own organisations.
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on
:
As a tangent I'm interested in the timing of this sudden revisiting of an issue from 7 years ago.
Undoubtedly there are serious issues around safeguarding within charitable and development work, as there are for many large organisations where people work in contact with vulnerable people.
But I can't help wondering if Oxfam has some powerful enemies who would love to make trouble for it. They have been much more vocal in recent years about the causes of poverty, in particular highlighting how much of the world,s wealth and income is owned by a small number of people. Only last month they released a new report into this to coincide with the World Economic forum meetings in Davos. I can quite imagine that this is not popular with certain people, perhaps certain people who have the ear of a newspaper like The Times, or are supporters of the Conservative Party...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Anyone want to argue that there is something different about going to (adult) prostitutes and other sexual misconduct in this scenario?
I don't for a range of reasons but I'd be interested to see if anyone wants to defend aidworkers going to prostitutes.
An argument could be made for prostitution (and other parts of the sex industry) to be a service industry, and that if similar rights and conditions for other service industries are applied then the moral arguments become different. So, if prostitutes supply their service for a fair salary, have safe working conditions, work within a defined contractual arrangement, have control over what they provide (most importantly the right to say "no" at any time) etc then maybe that can be a non-exploitative and abuse free contractual service industry.
The problem is that the vast majority of prostitution is nothing like that. And, can never be like that when there is a large differential in wealth between the prostitute and the client. And, in situations like this where the client is a western aid worker then there will always be a massive differential in power, that can not be anything other than exploitative.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
As a tangent I'm interested in the timing of this sudden revisiting of an issue from 7 years ago.
Undoubtedly there are serious issues around safeguarding within charitable and development work, as there are for many large organisations where people work in contact with vulnerable people.
But I can't help wondering if Oxfam has some powerful enemies who would love to make trouble for it. They have been much more vocal in recent years about the causes of poverty, in particular highlighting how much of the world,s wealth and income is owned by a small number of people. Only last month they released a new report into this to coincide with the World Economic forum meetings in Davos. I can quite imagine that this is not popular with certain people, perhaps certain people who have the ear of a newspaper like The Times, or are supporters of the Conservative Party...
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist I think this is almost a given. The icing on the cake for, I suspect, the same people, is the way it's giving the gutter press an opportunity to attack the whole concept of aid.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Using the Oxfam fracas to argue against foreign aid has a big logical hole in it. "Our citizens behave badly, therefore those foreigners should just go ahead and suffer and die."
People do bad things. Some of those people try to do good things to make them feel better about the bad things they do. Some more sociopathic types use the suffering of others to sexually exploit those who are suffering.
As long as you think of another person as lesser than yourself exploiting the other is easy.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
As long as you think of another person as lesser than yourself exploiting the other is easy.
Again, this is a troubling idea in-and-of-itself given we're talking about aidworkers.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I've also heard plenty of stories about expats in poor countries behaving badly - the dynamic is much the same.
And there's the GIs in the second world war - over sexed, over paid, and over here!
I think all these arguments about exploitation rest on there being something special about sex, don't they? (I do think that there is something special about sex, so agree with most of what has been posted here so far.)
If you are of the opinion that sex is just an enjoyable thing that people do, and doesn't have any special significance, is it worse to exploit a prostitute than it is to pay similarly small sums of money to exploit a local person to cook for you, drive you around, or whatever?
Posted by Lola (# 627) on
:
I typed an OP on this yesterday having listened to Today Program interview mentioned above but deleted it. Apparently a radio interview this lunchtime had a caller claim to have used adult prostitues in Bosnia and think this was completely fine. I agree with Boogie that people in need to aid are by definition vulnerable.
A few things worry me - the figures being quoted declared by major charities for their last year are that Oxfam investigated 87 allegations, Save The Children 30 and Christian Aid 2. I have a long standing regular donation to Save the Children. I have an even longer standing and larger regular donation to Christian Aid for whom I have also marched, written letters and delivered envelopes. I love the work of Christian Aid and Save the Children.
It seems we have seen two types of scandal enveloping major organisations - the We Knew So Moved them On Quietly story (maybe familiar in churches, football coaching, schools) and the We Were Told and We Refused to Listen (BBC Jimmy Saville, USA gymnastics). Is this one of these stories? Or something else.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
As others have said, the right wing press are now going flat out to discredit foreign aid over the issue of sexual exploitation. I noticed this morning, that the Daily Mail was targeting Oxfam shops, where they claim sex abuse is rife. Seems unlikely to me.
It's all very selective also. Again, as others have said, expats probably use local women for sex quite widely - for example, businessmen, soldiers, medical staff, teachers, and so on. I suppose the right wing will ignore them, as foreign aid is 'our money' which should be spent on ourselves.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Using the Oxfam fracas to argue against foreign aid has a big logical hole in it. "Our citizens behave badly, therefore those foreigners should just go ahead and suffer and die."
.
Not so big it can't be plugged by a desire not to send those foreign people any of our money. Usually disguised as "charity begins at home", but usually said by people who (a) have no idea what the phrase means, (b) never give to home charities either, and (c) bizarrely think that "starts" means "finishes".
Mostly readers of the Express.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I'm very, very suspicious of the furore. I'm sure it's driven by people who want an excuse to cut aid, and is timed to try to distract everyone's attention to the complete pigs ear the government is making at the moment of its brexit programme - or, rather, lack of it.
Also suspicious is that Ms Mordaunt et al haven't even been prepared to make it clear which outrage it is we're supposed to be enraged about.
Is it just that some aid workers are less than perfect - if you work in the aid sector, does that mean people are entitled to expect you to be a better person than everyone else, as though you were ordained, say?
Is it that some aid workers do things in their leisure time that the rest of us regard as grubby and/or exploitative - but in all my years working, I've no idea whether any of my colleagues habitually visited prostitutes or not. It's not the sort of thing people usually tell their workmates or managers about?
Is it that some of them were charging prostitutes to expenses - bad and a sackable offence in most lines of work?
Or is it that they were dispensing aid in return for sexual favours - that would be really bad and abhorrent? But if it actually was the latter, one would have expected that to have been at the core of the accusations and to have been much more explicit.
At the moment, I'm inclined to think this is yet another hate-fest being orchestrated by a government I no longer trust that wants to use sanctimony for nefarious purposes of its own.
[ 13. February 2018, 13:40: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lola:
A few things worry me - the figures being quoted declared by major charities for their last year are that Oxfam investigated 87 allegations, Save The Children 30 and Christian Aid 2.
I had a look to see how many staff and volunteers those charities have. I couldn't find numbers for Christian Aid (the form of partnership they favour probably wouldn't make those numbers meaningful anyway). But for Oxfam I got 2,500 staff and 31,000 volunteers, and for Save the Children UK 1,150 staff and 13,000 volunteers - which gives a rate of allegations at about 0.0025 per staff or volunteer. If those numbers include instances of using a prostitute while overseas then compare that to stories that 3.6% of British men have paid for sex with prostitutes in the last five years and that rate of allegations is minuscule. It would need to represent only 1% of all instances of aid workers engaging in sexual misconduct to even be of the same magnitude as the proportion of British men who use prostitutes.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Ok but most Oxfam staff and volunteers don't work overseas, Alan. These are significant numbers compared to the numbers working in the field.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I don't think organisations can control very well what their staff does in their free time, even if they wanted to.
Take for a moment a normal British company that has an employee who also lives and works in Britain. The company can't control what this person does in his free time. Even if he would visit a prostitute, this hasn't very much to do with his employer.
It's not that different for an employee who lives abroad on a British contract. Even if Oxfam wanted to, it couldn't prohibit its employers in Haiti or elsewhere to visit prostitutes. I don't think the fact that prostitution is illegal in these countries makes much of a difference either. Even then, if an employee does it in his free time, this wouldn't involve the employer. It's between the person and the police, the employer has nothing to do with that.
I never had a "thou shalt not visit prostitutes clause" in any of my labour contracts. I don't think such a clause is possible if your contract is under most European jurisdictions.
Usually, contracts have a clause that says "In your personal conduct in the country of employment, you shall not do anything that will blemish the reputation of your employer." But I think that in the case of a discrete prostitute visit (once again, even where this is illegal) this clause would be difficult to enforce.
One version I heard is that this took place within the Oxfam compound, and that the prostitutes were invited there. That makes things different. But in the case of an individual in his free time?
Sexual harassment within the workplace and child molestation are different things. Clauses about this *can* be in a European contract (they are in mine). But I don't think there can be such things in case of individual prostitute visits in an employer's free time.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I am not a lawyer, I have no idea about enforceability of the following.
However I'm just going to put the Save the Children code of practice here to me this suggests paying for sex whilst overseas working for StC is unacceptable.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mr cheesy: However I'm just going to put the Save the Children code of practice here to me this suggests paying for sex whilst overseas working for StC is unacceptable.
Okay, I'd never seen this clause myself. And yes, I have doubts about its enforceability.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
@ Le Roc ^^^ I think, though, that there is a general idea(even if not always explicitly stated) among aid groups and their allies that a) prostitution is a bad thing, and b) its prevalence is connected to the same socioeconomic problems that the aid groups are trying to alleviate.
So, yes, while organization can't control what their workers do on their spare time, if it is found that some of those workers are engaged in exploitative(by the standards of the aid community itself) practices in the third world, a lot of people are gonna say "Hm, these guys don't seem to take their mission very seriously. So why should anyone else?"
And it's a legitimate question, even if open to manipulation by the Daily Mail.
[ 13. February 2018, 14:43: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Just to add: I'm not sure if the clause "exchanging money, employment, goods or services for sexual favours" is about individual prostitution visits, or more about giving someone *company* resources in exchange for sex. I guess this would be a legal hellhole all by itself.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Stetson: So, yes, while organization can't control what their workers do on their spare time, if it is found that some of those workers are engaged in exploitative(by the standards of the aid community itself) practices in the third world, a lot of people are gonna say "Hm, these guys don't seem to take their mission very seriously. So why should anyone else?"
This puts organisations in quite a bind, when they can't control their employers' free time, yet they will be judged on their behaviour. It isn't easy.
I think all they can do is try to manage it, keep it as low as possible. Clauses like the one from Save the Children may be more with this objective in mind than about legal enforcement.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just to add: I'm not sure if the clause "exchanging money, employment, goods or services for sexual favours" is about individual prostitution visits, or more about giving someone *company* resources in exchange for sex. I guess this would be a legal hellhole all by itself.
I'm not just being argumentative, but this is clearly about individual behaviour. The previous clause says
quote:
Save the Children, therefore does not tolerate the following:
engaging in sexual relations with anyone under the age of 18, or abuse or exploit a child in any way
These are clearly "you shall not" statements.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mr cheesy: I'm not just being argumentative, but this is clearly about individual behaviour.
If you say so; it's not so clear to me.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mr cheesy: I'm not just being argumentative, but this is clearly about individual behaviour.
If you say so; it's not so clear to me.
Well, having sex with someone under the age of 18 is definitely something that can be done without using the resources of the overall organization. So, when they say that they are against that, full stop, we can probably assume that includes private actions.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't think organisations can control very well what their staff does in their free time, even if they wanted to.
Yet, most organisations do have policies relating to staff activities outside work. How quickly would someone be facing HR if they posted racist abuse on their personal Twitter account at the weekend? Or, engaged in hooliganism at the footie on a Saturday? Or was arrested for sexual assault? How many cricketers get knocked off the touring squad for involvement in a punch-up outside a pub, even before charges are place let alone a conviction? Or, footballers caught speeding?
Is it just that these are illegal, and an employer can sanction an employee who has acted illegally on their own time, but not if they do something legal but distasteful? But, if it's about legality then paying for the services of prostitutes where that is illegal counts.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Stetson: Well, having sex with someone under the age of 18 is definitely something that can be done without using the resources of the overall organization. So, when they say that they are against that, full stop, we can probably assume that includes private actions.
Yes.
But there is a malpractice, for selecting beneficiaries for food distribution, of doing so in exchange of sexual favours. I have the feeling that the second clause is more about that, because it mentions employment, goods or services.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Alan Cresswell: How quickly would someone be facing HR if they posted racist abuse on their personal Twitter account at the weekend? Or, engaged in hooliganism at the footie on a Saturday? Or was arrested for sexual assault? How many cricketers get knocked off the touring squad for involvement in a punch-up outside a pub, even before charges are place let alone a conviction? Or, footballers caught speeding?
Some of these fall under the clause I mentioned "Don't do anything in your free time that might blemish your employer's reputation". Some high-profile cases aside, I don't have the impression that it's easy to fire someone based on this clause.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Yes.
But there is a malpractice, for selecting beneficiaries for food distribution, of doing so in exchange of sexual favours. I have the feeling that the second clause is more about that, because it mentions employment, goods or services.
Just to clarify: it is your belief that no EU-based NGO has the legal authority to insist that workers overseas abstain from paid-for-sex. Is that right?
Do you think that those NGOs have any business acting in any way on things employees do in their spare time? Do you think Oxfam could/should have simply shrugged when presented with evidence that staff had visited prostitutes and done nothing?
I'm confused about what you think happened here. Is it your position that Oxfam and the others acted unreasonably if they fired staff for visiting prostitutes? That the reports and investigations must have been about more than paying adult prostitutes for sex?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mr cheesy: Just to clarify: it is your belief that no EU-based NGO has the legal authority to insist that workers overseas abstain from paid-for-sex. Is that right?
Not exactly. It is my belief that when EU-based NGOs want to punish (fire) their workers at home or oversees for engaging in paid-for-sex in their free time, they'll have a hard time doing so. And it will probably be costly.
quote:
mr cheesy: Do you think that those NGOs have any business acting in any way on things employees do in their spare time?
This is difficult. There are some things employees may not do in their free time: mostly they may not engage in child exploitation. They may also not post negative things openly about their employer (I have such a clause). And there is this vague clause "don't blemish your employer's reputation".
Employers may try to enforce this, and some will be more successful than others. What I'm saying is: this is difficult, and the legal system isn't always on their side here.
quote:
mr cheesy: Do you think Oxfam could/should have simply shrugged when presented with evidence that staff had visited prostitutes and done nothing?
No, of course not. In these cases, the right thing is to fire people. They probably have taken a financial hit doing so (which will ultimately be paid by their donors).
quote:
mr cheesy:[qb] I'm confused about what you think happened here.
I don't really know what happened here, I haven't followed this closely.
The only thing I'm saying is that it isn't easy for an organisation to balance their mission/reputationary requirements with their employee's rights, especially in their free time. More so with the Daily Mail pounding on them.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think all these arguments about exploitation rest on there being something special about sex, don't they? (I do think that there is something special about sex, so agree with most of what has been posted here so far.)
If you are of the opinion that sex is just an enjoyable thing that people do, and doesn't have any special significance, is it worse to exploit a prostitute than it is to pay similarly small sums of money to exploit a local person to cook for you, drive you around, or whatever?
Yes, it is worse. I think this will always be the case, even removing the old fashioned and religious objections.
Whilst I am on the sex-positive end of the spectrum, it is still an intimate act involving one's person. And thus will always be exploitable.
In order for your position to work, even if true, would require the entire world to be a fair and equitable place. So, ain't gonna happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
So, yes, while organization can't control what their workers do on their spare time, if it is found that some of those workers are engaged in exploitative(by the standards of the aid community itself) practices in the third world, a lot of people are gonna say "Hm, these guys don't seem to take their mission very seriously. So why should anyone else?"
And it's a legitimate question, even if open to manipulation by the Daily Mail.
Understandable? Yes. Legitimate, not so much. If the aid workers are distributing aid whilst misbehaving, then the charity is filling the function that they are intended to do. bringing them to account is absolutely the right thing to do. No longer funding the aid, isn't.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
To be fair to Oxfam, they did carry out an investigation, they did fire people involved and they did report to the charities regulator and in their public reports about their work, and then they instituted new safeguarding procedures.
I mean what did the charities regulator think "sexual misconduct" meant ?
(And unlike in most scandals of this type, those investigations happened close to the time of the allegations and the people were fired then and procedures changed then. Oxfam have not suddenly decided to act on this in relation to the current press story.)
Obviously, they could have done better, given this was a carry over from Chad in terms of allegations against one specific individual - but I don't think they deserve quite the level of vilification they are getting.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
So, yes, while organization can't control what their workers do on their spare time, if it is found that some of those workers are engaged in exploitative(by the standards of the aid community itself) practices in the third world, a lot of people are gonna say "Hm, these guys don't seem to take their mission very seriously. So why should anyone else?"
And it's a legitimate question, even if open to manipulation by the Daily Mail.
Understandable? Yes. Legitimate, not so much. If the aid workers are distributing aid whilst misbehaving, then the charity is filling the function that they are intended to do. bringing them to account is absolutely the right thing to do. No longer funding the aid, isn't.
The thing is, though, the claims made by Oxfam aren't empirically verifiable in the same way that the claims made by, say, a doctor are.
If a doctor advises me to quit smoking, but I find out that he smokes himself, his private inconsistency doesn't change the fact that the harms of smoking have been proven over and over again, and can be verified by a simple google search.
But when someone from Oxfam says "Human trafficiking is a big problem", that's a little less subject to easy verification. There are some people who argue that the whole alleged problem is just overblown hype, and most of the supposedly trafficked women are in the trade voluntarily, which doesn't sit well with the neo-puritan do-gooders, who've whipped up this moral panic about human-trafficking in order to stigmatize a legitimate business and make themselves look like heroes, so why should anyone give their money to these pearl-clutching con artists?
Now, as it happens, I believe the analysis of the NGOs moreso than I believe the analysis of the prostitution apologists. But that's because I have a certain degree of faith in the people who staff those NGOs and are making the claims. I haven't made any examinations of the third-world sex trade myself, so I have to rely on the people who have. But that becomes a bit more difficult if some of those people are found to be doing things which belie the whole idea that the third-world sex trade is harmful.
TL/DR: A perceived "Do as I say, not as I do" ethos is harmful to the credibility of the NGOs, and could result in less public support for their causes.
[ 13. February 2018, 17:04: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on
:
After the mention that the Daily Mail was gunning for Oxfam shops in the UK I had a quick look at the article, as I actually volunteer in one. It mixed up what is happening in places such as Haiti with the fact that not every volunteer has a security check. That puzzles me, surely they wouldn't be suggesting everyone who worked in the local supermarket was checked. I know paid staff and volunteers who work with young people on work experience etc are checked, but why check everyone else, we work a very few hours a week, there are always other people there and we have lots of training/reminders about appropriate behaviour.
I definitely think there is a certain amount of using this as an excuse to cut aid, I hope it doesn't stop people donating to the shops. Apparently two volunteers at our shop have decided to leave because of this scandal.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
TL/DR: A perceived "Do as I say, not as I do" ethos is harmful to the credibility of the NGOs, and could result in less public support for their causes.
But it isn’t truly “Do as I say, not as I do”. Yes, that might be a perception and it is certainly the spin of uncaring bastards, but it isn’t what is happening. It is poor management of an inevitable occurance. Accountability of the agencies is important. So is helping the disadvantaged. Using what has happened as an excuse is not excusable.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
... I definitely think there is a certain amount of using this as an excuse to cut aid, I hope it doesn't stop people donating to the shops. Apparently two volunteers at our shop have decided to leave because of this scandal.
The only point on which I'd disagree with you Sarasa, is your use of the words 'a certain amount'. I am sure that the Daily Mail is keen to use this as an excuse to whip up both hostility to aid generally and Oxfam specifically. It sees Oxfam as a nest of dangerous lefties hostile to it and critical of the international financial interests of its proprietors and their chums.
And do you instinctively believe anything the Daily Mail says? The thing that worries me, is that I know people who do. Personally, I find it better to assume everything in it is fake news unless corroborated by someone else who is reliable.
[ 13. February 2018, 20:27: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I wonder if everyone concerned with the DM is squeaky clean.
Present at the President's thing the other week, perhaps?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I don't know if any of the staff at the Mail have ever been involved in some form of sexual misconduct. But, they're certainly involved in inciting racial and homophobic hatred and violence, propagating lies about immigrants and muslims, seeking to suppress and prevent democratic processes, and printing other lies and misinformation. They may be clean in regard to sexual misconduct, but they have blood on their hands on other counts.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
There is an element of evolving attitudes in this issue.
George Orwell, despite his excoriation of imperialism, used young prostitutes in British colonial Burma and French colonial Morocco (quite likely under-age in the former, and almost certainly in the latter) without any apparent awareness of its constituting an exploitation of a power differential, ie rich (comparatively) Westerner and poor peasant.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
As I understand it, only a handful of Oxfam employees wore involved in using prostitution. That detracts from all the honest workers who are doing very good things with what they have.
It is a terrible situation that young girls are at the point of having to prostitute themselves just to keep them and their families alive. Remember Haiti has next to completely devastated by an earthquake. But it is true that even before the earthquake wealthy men were going to Haiti on sex trips. While it is illegal in Haiti, prostitution is everywhere.
A little-known fact is that prostitution actually civilized the Wild West of the United States. Remember Kitty from Gunsmoke? She was not just the owner of a saloon, she was a madam. Remember the stairs going up to some rooms? They had beds in them.
At the Comstock Lode in Nevada, they had 2,306 men working the mines, and there were 30 women in the camp. They were not laundry maids. Those women were getting up to $50 dollars a week, far more than the men working in the ground.
It was not uncommon for a Madam of several girls to give them healthcare. They were offered protection unlike the schoolmarm or the women that did follow their husbands out west. They were able to walk freely down the streets, drink booze, even develop dances that eventually became the craze of the Roaring 20's. Lipstick? Came from those painted girls.
Moreover, many prostitutes helped to set up schools, libraries, even (gasp) churches and whole towns were developed.
Don't believe me? You might want to read
this article.
Here is also a video that also explains how they settled the west.
That is not to say there weren't any dangers for these women. Some died in childbirth. Some became addicted to drugs. Some died violently but without them, several states would not have been able to join the union when they did.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
As I understand it, only a handful of Oxfam employees wore involved in using prostitution. That detracts from all the honest workers who are doing very good things with what they have.
It is a terrible situation that young girls are at the point of having to prostitute themselves just to keep them and their families alive. Remember Haiti has next to completely devastated by an earthquake. But it is true that even before the earthquake wealthy men were going to Haiti on sex trips. While it is illegal in Haiti, prostitution is everywhere.
A little-known fact is that prostitution actually civilized the Wild West of the United States. Remember Kitty from Gunsmoke? She was not just the owner of a saloon, she was a madam. Remember the stairs going up to some rooms? They had beds in them.
At the Comstock Lode in Nevada, they had 2,306 men working the mines, and there were 30 women in the camp. They were not laundry maids. Those women were getting up to $50 dollars a week, far more than the men working in the ground.
It was not uncommon for a Madam of several girls to give them healthcare. They were offered protection unlike the schoolmarm or the women that did follow their husbands out west. They were able to walk freely down the streets, drink booze, even develop dances that eventually became the craze of the Roaring 20's. Lipstick? Came from those painted girls.
Moreover, many prostitutes helped to set up schools, libraries, even (gasp) churches and whole towns were developed.
Don't believe me? You might want to read
this article.
Here is also a video that also explains how they settled the west.
That is not to say there weren't any dangers for these women. Some died in childbirth. Some became addicted to drugs. Some died violently but without them, several states would not have been able to join the union when they did.
There are apparently additional issues with the operation of their charity shops in the High Street. It seems they have been taking on volunteers with few background checks and it's resulted in claims of abuse against other (vulnerable) staff and volunteers.
I must admit I was staggered when I heard this. It's an unbelievably lax approach, so much so that it must be policy.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
A little-known fact is that prostitution actually civilized the Wild West of the United States. Remember Kitty from Gunsmoke? She was not just the owner of a saloon, she was a madam. Remember the stairs going up to some rooms? They had beds in them.
At the Comstock Lode in Nevada, they had 2,306 men working the mines, and there were 30 women in the camp. They were not laundry maids. Those women were getting up to $50 dollars a week, far more than the men working in the ground.
It was not uncommon for a Madam of several girls to give them healthcare. They were offered protection unlike the schoolmarm or the women that did follow their husbands out west. They were able to walk freely down the streets, drink booze, even develop dances that eventually became the craze of the Roaring 20's. Lipstick? Came from those painted girls.
Moreover, many prostitutes helped to set up schools, libraries, even (gasp) churches and whole towns were developed.
This seems to me to be a post-temporal* justification: Yeah, prostitutes died regularly of STDs, yes they were exposed to terrible violence, yes they lived outside of the protection of the law, yes they were effectively sold or forced into a lifestyle they wouldn't have chosen. But hey, they built churches.
This is meaningless in my opinion. And one could make a very similar argument that comes close to justifying slavery.
* not sure if this is a proper term, I just mean seeking to put a historical wrong in the best possible light
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There are apparently additional issues with the operation of their charity shops in the High Street. It seems they have been taking on volunteers with few background checks and it's resulted in claims of abuse against other (vulnerable) staff and volunteers.
I must admit I was staggered when I heard this. It's an unbelievably lax approach, so much so that it must be policy.
Is it? What kind of checks are you expecting a charity shop to make of volunteers?
I doubt that checks are made for every possible role in church - who thinks to do checks on people who clean or wash the dishes? If children are not involved, there is no particular reason to do a police check.
As a result, it is entirely possible that bullying happens. It is entirely possible that sometimes this might have been avoided if extensive checks (personal, police) had been made.
But, as anyone who has worked in any role with others knows, even more formal checks for employment do not always stamp out bullies.
It is best practice for British volunteers to at least have references for volunteer roles in charity shops. In practice there is often a massive turnover of volunteers so this is practically impossible.
This is not a story. And a shameful way to extend a real issue in disaster zones into British charity shops.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I doubt that checks are made for every possible role in church - who thinks to do checks on people who clean or wash the dishes? If children are not involved, there is no particular reason to do a police check.
Children or vulnerable adults.
[ 14. February 2018, 07:33: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There are apparently additional issues with the operation of their charity shops in the High Street. It seems they have been taking on volunteers with few background checks and it's resulted in claims of abuse against other (vulnerable) staff and volunteers.
I must admit I was staggered when I heard this. It's an unbelievably lax approach, so much so that it must be policy.
I'm not sure there would be a legal requirement for background checks in that instance. Though the charity shop sector does tend to have a higher proportion of vulnerable adults volunteering than would be the case for employees in retail generally. Does there need to be background checks whenever there may be a vulnerable adult in the same room? In which case it would need to be a requirement for all employers since the alternative would be the (illegal) decision not to employ vulnerable adults.
I bet that the same idiots who are up in arms about the lack of background checks would equally be indignant if it was revealed that Oxfam admin costs were high because they'd paid for background checks on all their staff and volunteers - I don't know the costs but even if it was just £100 then that would be £3m or so just to do checks on current staff and volunteers, and there's probably a high turnover of volunteers.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Children or vulnerable adults.
Well ok. It is possible that someone vulnerable might volunteer in a charity shop or cleaning a church. Of course there are different kinds of vulnerability, but in my experience arrangements are made (such as support workers in attendance) where this is known to be an issue in a charity shop.
I suppose in an ideal world every person who volunteered in a charity shop would have a police check because they might interact with a vulnerable adult.
I have never known of a charity shop that did this. And I've seen how the various charity brands run their shops and manage volunteers.
[ 14. February 2018, 07:46: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose in an ideal world every person who volunteered in a charity shop would have a police check because they might interact with a vulnerable adult.
If you follow it to the logical extent, then everyone may meet a child or vulnerable adult. We should ensure everyone has a full background check before they're allowed outside their front door.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I bet that the same idiots who are up in arms about the lack of background checks would equally be indignant if it was revealed that Oxfam admin costs were high because they'd paid for background checks on all their staff and volunteers
This.
Two things are clear here (to me, anyway).
1) The sexual exploitation of people by Aid Workers is abhorrent.
2) Many are using this as a stick to beat Aid in general and that is also evil.
How cynical do you have to be to use sexual exploitation of vulnerable people to further your agenda?
AFZ
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
DBS checks cost £26 for a standard check and £44 for an enhanced check. They are free for volunteer positions.
It costs £13 a year for someone to subscribe to the update service - so the standard £44 + £13 for the first check.
(So should use preview post)
[ 14. February 2018, 07:57: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not sure there would be a legal requirement for background checks in that instance. Though the charity shop sector does tend to have a higher proportion of vulnerable adults volunteering than would be the case for employees in retail generally. Does there need to be background checks whenever there may be a vulnerable adult in the same room? In which case it would need to be a requirement for all employers since the alternative would be the (illegal) decision not to employ vulnerable adults.
I suspect this depends on who is determined to be vulnerable. Charity shop volunteers are often older, often younger, often unemployed and sometimes lacking in social skills that one might expect in employment. Of course this makes some vulnerable as they lack the resilience to cope with things like bullying.
But I'm not sure that many who volunteer would count as being the kind of "vulnerable adult" that would therefore require routine police checks of other volunteers. As far as I know, no high street charity shop brand routinely checks volunteers in this way.
quote:
I bet that the same idiots who are up in arms about the lack of background checks would equally be indignant if it was revealed that Oxfam admin costs were high because they'd paid for background checks on all their staff and volunteers - I don't know the costs but even if it was just £100 then that would be £3m or so just to do checks on current staff and volunteers, and there's probably a high turnover of volunteers.
Sadly charity shops are the face of the big charities, so tend to be a convenient whipping boy when there is a charity scandal. In practice few charities make much money from charity shops (relatively, considering the costs and comparing to other incomes) so a sad result of ongoing attacks in this way might well lead to some deciding that it isn't worth the effort. Charities like Oxfam use their charity shops as a literal shopwindow for their work, so they're always going to be badly affected by this scandal.
Also possibly worth remembering that volunteering in a charity shop is quite a weird thing and often causes conflict. There are a lot of pissed-off ex-volunteers, so some saying that they're leaving Oxfam because of the current problem is no big deal in and of itself.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
DBS checks cost £26 for a standard check and £44 for an enhanced check. They are free for volunteer positions.
I thought they were free to the volunteer but cost the charity. Am I wrong in thinking that?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I am now feeling guilty about something I didn't do anything about.
There was a new Oxfam shop in the town, unusually with a male manager, and he was from one of India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka. He was also a smarmy type, sucking up to white female customers, and triggering my antennae, so I didn't spend long in there.
That wasn't what I should have done something about, though. There was a young black volunteer, and on one occasion she was going through the children's clothes, and asked him if she could have a discount on the item. There are ways of pointing out that the purpose of selling things there is to make a profit for the charity, but one of them is not saying loudly "You aren't in Africa now."
I left at once, and didn't return, but I had no idea who I should speak to, and also was afraid he would use the race card at me. And i wish I had done something.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Most employers pay for DBS checks. It's a few years since I was given a DBS* check as a volunteer, but that was free both to me and the organisation.
* I pay for my own DBS on the update service, which means I'm covered for the voluntary work I do too. But the update service has only been running for a few years. It's not so long ago that I had 5 current CRB checks for different things as each organisation required their own CRB. (CRB checks became DBS checks not that long ago)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I can't always say this, but I find myself agreeing with Mr Cheesy's recent posts.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I am now feeling guilty about something I didn't do anything about.
There was a new Oxfam shop in the town, unusually with a male manager, and he was from one of India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka.
I'm sure he wasn't. Nobody from Pakistan, India or Sri Lanka would get a visa to be a manager of a charity shop.
quote:
He was also a smarmy type, sucking up to white female customers, and triggering my antennae, so I didn't spend long in there.
That wasn't what I should have done something about, though. There was a young black volunteer, and on one occasion she was going through the children's clothes, and asked him if she could have a discount on the item. There are ways of pointing out that the purpose of selling things there is to make a profit for the charity, but one of them is not saying loudly "You aren't in Africa now."
I left at once, and didn't return, but I had no idea who I should speak to, and also was afraid he would use the race card at me. And i wish I had done something.
Sounds inappropriate although possibly the volunteer was a recent refugee from Africa where haggling is a feature of commerce.
I actually think some charity shop managers need to lighten up. The purpose of the shop is to maximise a return of profit to the charity, not to have products on shelves awaiting for months the ideal customer who will pay the full asking price. Haggling is an distraction in a shop where there is a lot of trade and items are easily sold for the full asking price. But may be a benefit if trading is slow.
Also charity shop managers might well benefit from giving volunteers a discount.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Most employers pay for DBS checks. It's a few years since I was given a DBS* check as a volunteer, but that was free both to me and the organisation.
Oh right, I didn't know that. Possibly they should be more routinely used in charity shops than they are in my experience, then.
[ 14. February 2018, 08:22: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Correction - his family was from .....
But his English was accented, and he could quite possibly have been part of the group that came in from Uganda. Or, indeed, have come in earlier as from the Commonwealth before rules were changed.
And he had contacts who could get him clothing in sub-continent fabrics - which I would have quite liked.
Anyway, his race was part of my problem with dealing with his behaviour.
[ 14. February 2018, 08:24: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Anyway, his race was part of my problem with dealing with his behaviour.
Yes, it certainly sounds like it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
DBS checks cost £26 for a standard check and £44 for an enhanced check. They are free for volunteer positions.
I thought they were free to the volunteer but cost the charity. Am I wrong in thinking that?
If they are free to the charity then the only cost is the time to fill in the paperwork and await the check to be returned.
Though, of course, that's effectively a multi-million pound government subsidy to charities. If the government charged for those checks, and if we're talking children and vulnerable adults it won't be the basic check that's demanded, that would give the government oodles of extra cash to fund tax breaks for the rich.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
This from the Independent is very good
I particularly like how it finishes:
quote:
Quoting Rachel Moran:
Wouldn’t you say, if a person cannot afford to feed themselves, the appropriate thing to put in their mouth is food, not your cock?
AFZ
Posted by Lola (# 627) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
A little-known fact is that prostitution actually civilized the Wild West of the United States. Remember Kitty from Gunsmoke? She was not just the owner of a saloon, she was a madam. Remember the stairs going up to some rooms? They had beds in them.
At the Comstock Lode in Nevada, they had 2,306 men working the mines, and there were 30 women in the camp. They were not laundry maids. Those women were getting up to $50 dollars a week, far more than the men working in the ground.
It was not uncommon for a Madam of several girls to give them healthcare. They were offered protection unlike the schoolmarm or the women that did follow their husbands out west. They were able to walk freely down the streets, drink booze, even develop dances that eventually became the craze of the Roaring 20's. Lipstick? Came from those painted girls.
Moreover, many prostitutes helped to set up schools, libraries, even (gasp) churches and whole towns were developed.
This seems to me to be a post-temporal* justification: Yeah, prostitutes died regularly of STDs, yes they were exposed to terrible violence, yes they lived outside of the protection of the law, yes they were effectively sold or forced into a lifestyle they wouldn't have chosen. But hey, they built churches.
This is meaningless in my opinion. And one could make a very similar argument that comes close to justifying slavery.
* not sure if this is a proper term, I just mean seeking to put a historical wrong in the best possible light
I agree with mr cheesy. In my mind the examples you cite are simply a further factor of the prostitutes being reduced from people to commodities. Things. A bus business services its fleet of vehicles so it can continue to use them to earn money not from any benevolent goal. And it might tie ribbons and balloons over them and drive them round the streets when the town has a carnival but that too is about advertising and cold hard cash.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lola:
I agree with mr cheesy. In my mind the examples you cite are simply a further factor of the prostitutes being reduced from people to commodities. Things. A bus business services its fleet of vehicles so it can continue to use them to earn money not from any benevolent goal. And it might tie ribbons and balloons over them and drive them round the streets when the town has a carnival but that too is about advertising and cold hard cash.
Yep.
There are countless stories from all over the world of slaves being well-treated and provided for by their owners. These particular stories are part of the whole when it comes to slavery but it would be deeply disingenuous to use them to try to justify slavery. It is wrong for one person to own another.
For the most part (with a small number of exceptions) prostitution - as well as involving sex - is a form of slavery. Often it's economic enslavement but it's still enslavement.
Desperate women forced on to the streets. Anyone using such a 'service' is de facto taking advantage of these women.
And that's before we even look at the underage girls involved.
If Oxfam has not done due-diligence in terms of whom it employs, it should be called-out for that. If Oxfam has somehow been complicit, it should be called-out for that too. If, on the other hand, Oxfam found the problem and dealt with it (as best as possible) then that's very different. My skepticism here stems from knowing that the ones doing the calling (as it were) have an agenda and a track-record of anything but support for the most vulnerable.
The bigger issue of how to protect such people from exploitation is surely not Oxfam's responsibility alone?
On LBC yesterday was a brilliant caller who had served in the British Army and been sent to the former Yugoslavia. He told of how local women employed at the British base were allowed to take potato peelings home and his job was to check their bags for stolen items. He found multiple hams and cheese and whatever else they could find and never confiscated one because he knew how desperate these people were. He gave them money when he could. He did not expect sexual favours in return.
AFZ
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
As a tangent I'm interested in the timing of this sudden revisiting of an issue from 7 years ago.
Undoubtedly there are serious issues around safeguarding within charitable and development work, as there are for many large organisations where people work in contact with vulnerable people.
But I can't help wondering if Oxfam has some powerful enemies who would love to make trouble for it. They have been much more vocal in recent years about the causes of poverty, in particular highlighting how much of the world,s wealth and income is owned by a small number of people. Only last month they released a new report into this to coincide with the World Economic forum meetings in Davos. I can quite imagine that this is not popular with certain people, perhaps certain people who have the ear of a newspaper like The Times, or are supporters of the Conservative Party...
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist I think this is almost a given. The icing on the cake for, I suspect, the same people, is the way it's giving the gutter press an opportunity to attack the whole concept of aid.
I remember Catholics making similar complaints that the child abuse scandal was being exploited by people with an ant-Catholic agenda. They were probably right but it didn't follow that the child abuse scandal shouldn't have been uncovered. I don't doubt that Jacob Rees-Mogg and Paul Dacre saw an obvious advantage when the news broke but it doesn't follow that reporting it wasn't in the public interest.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
In one way, the development sector is more vulnerable to this than other sectors.
If one person in the car industry does something bad, no-one will say: we should stop buying cars.
If one person in the development sector does something bad, a lot of people will say, loudly: we should end development work.
One bad apple affects the development sector more than other fields.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But then there are a number of people itching to find reasons to stop foreign aid. So of course, they are jumping all over this, and saying, see, we told you that aid was a bad thing. Of course, as someone pointed out, the logic is wacky - some of our aid workers have been corrupt - and the solution is the punish those who need aid.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
If one person in the car industry does something bad, no-one will say: we should stop buying cars.
If one person in the development sector does something bad, a lot of people will say, loudly: we should end development work.
The difference is(and this is similar to what I tried to outline above), the development agencies are essentially "selling" you a moral worldview, one not subject to the same kind of benefit-calculation as a car company's product.
AID AGENCIES: You should be concerned about poverty and exploitation in the third world, and support our groups' in their effort to alleviate it.
JOHN Q. PUBLIC: But some of your top leaders are going over there and coercing these impoverished women into sex. So why the hell should we listen to anything YOU have to say about the tragedy in the third world?
Now, is that a fair critique? Maybe not. In fact, it might be a variation of the old logical fallacy the tu quoque. On the other hand, some people might conclude "Well, if seeing these so-called tragedies isn't enough to dissuade aid workers from behaving like bog-standard sex tourists, maybe the horror isn't that big a deal to begin with."
Again, I'm personally inclined to think that the problems in the third-world are indeed real, and that the aid agencies are making things at least a little better for the people affected. But, given the recent revelations, I don't know if I could neccessarily make the most convincing counterargument to someone who wanted to believe the cynical interpretation.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
And as for "People don't stop buying cars because of bad behaviour by automobile execs...
VW profits down by 20% after emissions scandal
Granted, that's just for the company that was running the scam, not for the car industry in general. Still, not an entirely logical response from the consumer, since VW would be unlikely to pull that stunt twice.
And I doubt they'd get much sympathy if they were to start whining about how environmentalists were just exploiting this scandal to push their pre-existing animosity toward Volkswagen.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Granted, that's just for the company that was running the scam, not for the car industry in general. Still, not an entirely logical response from the consumer, since VW would be unlikely to pull that stunt twice.
"I'm not going to buy from you arseholes - I'm buying from someone else" is an entirely logical response to a company's reported bad behaviour.
Note that there's no suggestion that people are buying fewer cars - just that they're not buying VWs. Because people know that they need cars.
With something like foreign aid, however, it's much easier for one bad actor to tarnish the whole field.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Note that there's no suggestion that people are buying fewer cars - just that they're not buying VWs. Because people know that they need cars.
Wrong
Car sales are down, diesel car sales have dropped off a cliff.
[ 14. February 2018, 17:20: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But then there are a number of people itching to find reasons to stop foreign aid. So of course, they are jumping all over this, and saying, see, we told you that aid was a bad thing.
I don't believe that we should stop foreign aid. But I do wonder if this scandal asks some deeper questions about how we "do" it ... for instance, about the burgeoning aid "industry", about the way that the aiders are almost inevitably in a position of power vis-a-vis the people they are trying to help, about the way in which aid can be targeted so as to help promote the aims and values of foreign governments.
Many years ago I read that a very high proportion of foreign aid money effectively never leaves the donor country since it goes into the pockets of salaried workers or on buying aid equipment and products to hand out at the other end. If true, there's nothing intrinsically wrong in that - but it should make us think.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Car sales are down, diesel car sales have dropped off a cliff.
At the risk of going off tangent here; car sales are down because wages have stagnated. For a while dealers were able to compensate for this with attractive finance offers, but with warnings over the viability of this model the sources of the financing have dried up.
Diesel car sales have fallen because a large percentage of new diesel sales are to the fleet companies like Lex, Arval etc, and because of reality of rising taxes on diesel company cars (and the possibility of more to come) people have opted for cars with lower taxes (like hybrids - which in reality are probably worse for the environment). There's a hint of this in the article:
"Mr Hawes said that confusion about the future of diesel had fuelled a backlash against diesel cars."
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Baptist Trainfan wrote:
quote:
Many years ago I read that a very high proportion of foreign aid money effectively never leaves the donor country since it goes into the pockets of salaried workers or on buying aid equipment and products to hand out at the other end. If true, there's nothing intrinsically wrong in that - but it should make us think.
Well, if they're "buying aid equipment and products to hand out at the other end", that counts as leaving the donor country, doesn't it?
Point taken about salaried workers in the home-country. It seems to me that progressives don't really buy the argument made by private-sector corporations that CEO salaries have to be as high as they are because they need to attract good talent, and those wages are what the market is dictating at the present time. But I suspect that's the same sort of argument an aid-agency would make if someone said their upper-level staff was overpaid.
The philosopher Peter Singer used to(maybe still does) run a website that analyzed which charities were the best, in terms of ensuring that donor-money is spent in the most effient way possible. I wonder what they said about Oxfam.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
The philosopher Peter Singer used to(maybe still does) run a website that analyzed which charities were the best, in terms of ensuring that donor-money is spent in the most effient way possible. I wonder what they said about Oxfam.
There's an entire movement of 'effective altruism' that attempts to quantify this kind of thing.
In general larger charities tend to do badly in these kinds of ratings. As they tend to engage in a wider range of activities some of which are difficult to quantify (vs eradicating a single disease), and also the larger a charity is the less likely it is that *additional* donations will lead to effective outcomes.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Oxfam scandal spotlights lack of NGO oversight in poor countries
According to that article, getting paid in US dollars widens the chasm between the aid workers and the people they're helping.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, if they're "buying aid equipment and products to hand out at the other end", that counts as leaving the donor country, doesn't it?
It can be argued that it is a subsidy for those products and businesses.
Again, there is a difference between disaster and other aid situations; however, for example US food donations have been produced with the help of subsidies and may depress national agricultural economies.
Or look at Iraq where massive corporations scrabbled for US dollars leaving very little left in terms of tangible benefits in the ground.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Going back to the OP, surely its not that the men involved were working for NGOs, charities, abroad or in the UK: the problem is why do some men seem to feel the need to (a) pay for sex; and (b)feel that the best sexual encounter, at least for them, is one where there is a gross mis-match of status, power, etc?
Sure, there are times when sexual physical release would be good and one doesn't have a partner - speak to those of us who are bereaved about it - but you can't tell me that in this day and age, and with people at the top of the "aid industry" pile being paid as much as they are, they are prevented from going home to wife or girlfriend from time-to-time? Or, dare I day it, just put up with lack of a regular sex life for periods being one of the downsides of the job?
Bottom line: you don't need sex in the same way that you need food, shelter and safety: sure, sex would be nice, but there's always the old hand-jive.
This scandal isn't about sex, its about power.
[ 15. February 2018, 10:47: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Going back to the OP, surely its not that the men involved were working for NGOs, charities, abroad or in the UK: the problem is why do some men seem to feel the need to (a) pay for sex; and (b)feel that the best sexual encounter, at least for them, is one where there is a gross mis-match of status, power, etc?
Sure, there are times when sexual physical release would be good and one doesn't have a partner - speak to those of us who are bereaved about it - but you can't tell me that in this day and age, and with people at the top of the "aid industry" pile being paid as much as they are, they are prevented from going home to wife or girlfriend from time-to-time? Or, dare I day it, just put up with lack of a regular sex life for periods being one of the downsides of the job?
Bottom line: you don't need sex in the same way that you need food, shelter and safety: sure, sex would be nice, but there's always the old hand-jive.
This scandal isn't about sex, its about power.
Yes, and very disproportionate power I suspect.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lola:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
A little-known fact is that prostitution actually civilized the Wild West of the United States. Remember Kitty from Gunsmoke? <snip>
Moreover, many prostitutes helped to set up schools, libraries, even (gasp) churches and whole towns were developed.
This seems to me to be a post-temporal* justification: Yeah, prostitutes died regularly of STDs, yes they were exposed to terrible violence, yes they lived outside of the protection of the law, yes they were effectively sold or forced into a lifestyle they wouldn't have chosen. But hey, they built churches.
This is meaningless in my opinion. And one could make a very similar argument that comes close to justifying slavery.
* not sure if this is a proper term, I just mean seeking to put a historical wrong in the best possible light
I agree with mr cheesy. In my mind the examples you cite are simply a further factor of the prostitutes being reduced from people to commodities. Things. A bus business services its fleet of vehicles so it can continue to use them to earn money not from any benevolent goal. And it might tie ribbons and balloons over them and drive them round the streets when the town has a carnival but that too is about advertising and cold hard cash.
I agree with Mr Cheesy, too.
Just because some women were smart, resourceful and persistent enough to get some good results out of fucking-for-finance doesn't make it 'civilization'. Think what they might've achieved if they had had a greater number of legitimate options for their entrepreneurial skills than selling their fellow females, or themselves, to men for sex.
'Power' is what buying and selling sex is about. Who has the power to pay for his sexual satisfaction. Who is so powerless over her own earning potential that selling herself becomes the best option. That equation alone spells out something badly wrong in a society. And I am aware that those pronouns can be swapped in some circumstances.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
That is not to say there weren't any dangers for these women. Some died in childbirth. Some became addicted to drugs. Some died violently but without them, several states would not have been able to join the union when they did.
Not some, most. The article and the video highlight the exceptions, not the rule. Many, many more died in obscurity of overdose, disease and murder.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
'Power' is what buying and selling sex is about.
I disagree.
Prostitution, for the customers, is primarily about sex. Many likely don't care why a prostitute is in the business. Most won't think too hard about it. This is not absolution, exploitation is exploitation, ignorance is no excuse.
Not that there is no power differential, but if there were lines of willing men and women offering free sex with no question or qualification, prostitution would dramatically drop.
The issue is that, for the prostitutes, there is a power differential and many other problems that generally accompany the issue.
Prostitution, for many of the people on the receiving end, is not a good thing. Most often the very opposite.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I think the power aspect is overplayed sometimes. It probably does appeal to some men, to have sex with a subordinate woman, but to make the subordinatation the central issue is a bit odd. Plenty of guys want to fuck someone, and they look for someone available.
As to aid workers who do this, you would have to look at them individually, surely?
[ 15. February 2018, 15:54: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think the power aspect is overplayed sometimes. It probably does appeal to some men, to have sex with a subordinate woman, but to make the subordinatation the central issue is a bit odd. Plenty of guys want to fuck someone, and they look for someone available.
I think it's like a lot of other activities where there is a power-imbalance: sometimes the imbalance is part of the attraction, sometimes it isn't.
Some people who commit armed robbery probably get off on waving phallus-shaped weapons in the face of their terrified victims. On the other hand, a lot of them probably just calculate it's an easy way to get cash.
[ 15. February 2018, 16:50: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Desmond Tutu resigns as Oxfam ambassador over immorality claims
And, no, contrary to the awkward wording of the headlines, Tutu himself was not the subject of the "immorality claims".
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by quetzlcoatl quote:
...I think the power aspect is overplayed sometimes. It probably does appeal to some men, to have sex with a subordinate woman, but to make the subordinatation the central issue is a bit odd. Plenty of guys want to fuck someone, and they look for someone available.
I didn't suggest that the men - and it seems to be exclusively men - in these cases are consciously into the power thing in these sexual encounters (although I suspect a few are) but that because of the inequality of status, opportunity, etc, between the two protagonists it ends up being a power thing, at least in part.
In the case of senior aid staff preying on junior aid staff, whether local employees or staffers/interns from a donor nation, then power definitely does come into it, just as it does within an office environment in, say, London or New York. Don't tell me that the relative power, or lack of it, isn't an issue when a 50-something boss decides to hit on a 20-something intern or local employee: the 50-something predator is likely to be "the boss" or of senior status and the junior isn't, so there is going to be a natural fear that refusing to accede to sexual demands is going to have a negative effect on their job prospects, up to and including being fired.
"Plenty of guys want...available" - well, maybe, but if you're working for an organisation dedicated to bringing relief and improving the lives of people after natural disaster or who are generally impoverished, even those people who may seem to be "available" - I assume you mean working as prostitutes? - may only be doing so out of economic necessity. As most sex workers in the west will tell you, they didn't choose the life they have, they were forced into it out of necessity. So the whole notion of "availability" is clouded by the deeper issue of lack of choice.
[ 15. February 2018, 20:06: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Excellent post!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
According to this news report, Save the Children investigated reports of sexual abuse by aidworkers and UN staff more than 10 years ago and found that reports were widespread and heard allegations about staff working for a wide range of agencies.
This isn't just about Oxfam and isn't just about adult prostitution. If anything, the Oxfam allegations sound pretty mild.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This isn't just about Oxfam and isn't just about adult prostitution. If anything, the Oxfam allegations sound pretty mild.
"Its research exposed abuse linked to 23 humanitarian, peacekeeping and security organisations operating in Haiti, Ivory Coast and what was then Southern Sudan."
Yes, the reports point to pretty widespread abuse - but there was already evidence of this years ago see as an example Kathryn Bolkovac's allegations about UN/military contractors and their actions in Bosnia.
At least in the past, abuses by international forces have been fairly poorly investigated.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I still don't see why this is a shock to anyone. Trauma makes people act strangely, and against the moral code they would follow in other situations. The situation is absolutely full of trauma and dislocation on all sides, and I very much doubt that the aid workers are surrounded either by their family, which would be traumatic in itself in terms of dragging them into a situation of perceived danger, or by adequate psychological support services. Likewise, I doubt that in many cases psychological services are available to refugees to deal with the trauma of their own dislocation or, equally significantly, ready access to jobs in their newly local economy. Likewise, well-paid foreigners will always be a honeypot for poor indigenous populations, especially if they have also suffered trauma themselves.
Prostitution is known as the oldest profession for a reason, and real effort would need to be put in economically to stop this from happening. Cheap, phony righteous indignation from those thousands of miles away from the situation is absolutely not an adequate substitute.
[ 17. February 2018, 08:43: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Yes, we all know that trauma can loosen a person's natural inhibitions and make them act in ways unimaginable in other circumstances.
But in the case of these aid workers, dare I suggest that it isn't them who've suffered the great trauma but the people to whom they are supposed to be giving aid. Granted, even aid workers may be traumatised from time-to-time but, with the greatest respect, these people are meant to be professionals.
And before anyone starts to bleat about people being "offered" sex, just because they may be "offered" a quickie doesn't mean they have to accept.
I'm afraid there are unpleasant echoes here of what happened in Europe at the end of WWII: my grandfather was in a Guards regiment in Germany drafted in after widespread rapine of the civilian population by their "liberators" - not Russians either.
[ 17. February 2018, 15:03: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on
:
Re DBS checks: it isn't normal for shops to check assistants, so why should they in charity shops? The check is for Safeguarding when you are in a 1/1 situation with children or vulnerable adults and no one else is there. Otherwise everyone would need one anywhere! Churches are supposed to have them for those in the above situations.
The problem we have at the moment which includes aid agencies, is basically a power/dominance one. And those with power are usually men.
We have a problem today right across the board with men and the way they treat women - not just in the aid industry.
This needs tackling. Until men learn to treat all women with respect, this will always be a problem. Educating men and boys is the answer. There will always be bad apples, however this is too widespread in society just to be a few bad apples.
One is tempted to say that the problem is men. But that will be received with howls. But I think men do need to examine themselves and their attitudes to power and to women.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
Re DBS checks: it isn't normal for shops to check assistants, so why should they in charity shops?
AIUI, most shops would obtain a basic background check, which would include any criminal convictions. Because, they probably wouldn't want to employ someone with convictions for shoplifting. That basic check wouldn't include any information on investigations which hadn't lead to prosecution, or any convictions which were old and been spent. A more detailed (and expensive) check would be needed for that.
quote:
The check is for Safeguarding when you are in a 1/1 situation with children or vulnerable adults and no one else is there.
Again, I don't think that's quite right. When sorting out our Sunday School provision a few years back it was clear that everyone who might take the kids out during the service would need a background check. Simply having a system where there were always two or more adults present would not suffice. Though that may have been because it's difficult to ensure that with the possibility of needing to take a child to the toilet or similar situations where one adult could be alone with a child or children.
Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
Re DBS checks: it isn't normal for shops to check assistants, so why should they in charity shops?
AIUI, most shops would obtain a basic background check, which would include any criminal convictions.
They can't legally do that in the UK. Employers are only permitted to make DBS checks for safeguarding of children or vulnerable adults.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
In which case the basic disclosure isn't relevant. Information on conviction for, say petty theft or speeding, isn't going to be a predictor for safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults. Why have three levels of disclosure, and then an additional process for those who will be dealing with children and vulnerable adults?
Though I do admit I may have misread the information on government webpages about disclosure.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think the power aspect is overplayed sometimes. It probably does appeal to some men, to have sex with a subordinate woman, but to make the subordinatation the central issue is a bit odd. Plenty of guys want to fuck someone, and they look for someone available.
In general terms, where prostitution is concerned, I don't see how the power dynamics can be overplayed.
I know the specific point you and Lilbuddha refer to, is about an individual over-powering, so to speak, a subordinate individual. And of course there is a lot to consider, with reference to individual responsibility for the 'use' of another human being for one's own satisfaction in that way. Just because sex is the motivator, does not mean there is no abuse of power.
But my point was about recognising a culture where distribution of 'power', as experienced in the practical realities of who can choose to do what with their lives, is unequal. Inevitably this creates layers of Those Who Use, and Those Who Are Used.
Some of these layers may be reasonable and even healthy enough. Eg, I give an employer 38 hours of my week; s/he gives me a salary, a pension and paid holiday. My employer has power over me; but a rational contract can be worked out. But if the power is seriously perverted, maybe I end up having to give someone my body for a few quid and risking God knows what, just so I can eat and put a roof over my head.
Power, as I mean it, is to choose how to live in the world, that makes a difference to me. Employment, location, status, support, education, income, health, many other things, give me the power to increase my choices. In many cases - most? - it's arguable that a prostitute is in that profession because their power to choose is severely limited. And how collusive and enabling our societies and communities are in sustaining these power inequalities is a question worth raising.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by wild haggis quote:
Until men learn to treat all women with respect, this will always be a problem. Educating men and boys is the answer. There will always be bad apples, however this is too widespread in society just to be a few bad apples.
Yes, but you're only addressing half of the issue.
Why is it perceived to be only men who need to learn to treat only women with respect?
At the risk of sounding like a dinosaur, the problem is that society and the day-to-day interactions between people has coarsened dramatically over the past 30+ years. It is not only men and boys in need of education, it is people in general.
Whether any of this can be laid at the door of family breakdown or a collapse in standards of public discourse is for debate on another thread. The fact remains that in day-to-day speech (and reportage, for that matter) it is common to hear voiced great rudeness and an almost total unpreparedness to accept that others are entitled to a view at variance with one's own. We are all too ready to label people - especially those we consider "other" - as being inferior to ourselves and rather than treating the other, or stranger with extra respect, relations and speech with them is the polar opposite: rude, coarse, abrupt and (frequently) foul.
What some today perceive or describe as behaviour that was patriarchal or authoritarian was perhaps just courteous? People of every age need to step back from name-calling and general discourtesy and - to use a hackneyed-but-true saw - do unto others as they would be done by.
This should all start in the home: sadly, I fear that isn't likely in many homes today. So the answer has to come from schools but also from the example of those in the public eye - and that includes teachers and others in positions of authority such as Members of Parliament. To be blunt, the example set in the UK of Prime Minister's Questions on a Wednesday lunchtime is appalling and to be deplored. An exemplar of bad behaviour, gracelessness, rudeness, bigotry and general disrespect hard to beat, this "national institution" is something of which we in the UK should be deeply ashamed, rather than holding it up as an indication of the health of our democracy.
And I'd point out that the unwillingness of our MPs to ban The Sun's page 3 girls speaks more of public attitudes towards women and general decency than anything else.
[ 18. February 2018, 13:46: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
That's bullshit. Powerful men have always raped and prostitutes women in war and disaster zones; this isn't something that started last week.
And the heckling in the House of Commons has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
L'organist wrote:
quote:
And I'd point out that the unwillingness of our MPs to ban The Sun's page 3 girls speaks more of public attitudes towards women and general decency than anything else.
If the rationale for banning Page 3 is that it portrays a degrading attitude toward women, that's gonna be one helluva long list of things that need to be outlawed, starting with half the stand-up comedians and pretty much ALL the lad-magazines in the country. Not to mention most of the books of the Old Testament.
If it's because Page 3 shows bare breasts, that's on slightly firmer ground, since public displays of nudity have traditionally been subject to legal sanction. Though I suspect the reason Page 3 gets on everyone's radar is the combination of offenses, ie. the offense against women is highlighted by the offense against "decency".
If they were just running dating advice(for example) portraying young women as airheaded floozies useful for not much besides a shag, it would likely go largely unnoticed. But but when they promote the same basic idea via photographs of BARE BREASTS, it suddenly enters everyone's consciousness as an issue.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Why is it perceived to be only men who need to learn to treat only women with respect?
At the risk of sounding like a dinosaur, the problem is that society and the day-to-day interactions between people has coarsened dramatically over the past 30+ years. It is not only men and boys in need of education, it is people in general.
As bad as it is now, it was worse before. The difference is that "proper" people accepted more poor behaviour as OK and didn't talk about what did disapprove of. The difference now is the light being shown upon misdeeds, not the lack of proper behaviour.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Anselmina wrote:
quote:
I know the specific point you and Lilbuddha refer to, is about an individual over-powering, so to speak, a subordinate individual. And of course there is a lot to consider, with reference to individual responsibility for the 'use' of another human being for one's own satisfaction in that way. Just because sex is the motivator, does not mean there is no abuse of power.
Well, I thought that you wrote earlier that buying and selling sex is about power. Well, it is partly about power, but it's also about sex. It seems odd to actually deny that the men involved are seeking sex.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Anselmina wrote:
quote:
I know the specific point you and Lilbuddha refer to, is about an individual over-powering, so to speak, a subordinate individual. And of course there is a lot to consider, with reference to individual responsibility for the 'use' of another human being for one's own satisfaction in that way. Just because sex is the motivator, does not mean there is no abuse of power.
Well, I thought that you wrote earlier that buying and selling sex is about power. Well, it is partly about power, but it's also about sex. It seems odd to actually deny that the men involved are seeking sex.
Buying sex, for most men,¹ is about buying sex. There is an inevitable abuse of power that is part of prostitution as a whole. Users have to ignore that power and abuse problem,² but it is different to that being a motivating factor.
I certainly was not downplaying power or abuse issues.
¹Because it is mostly men
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Lilbuddha and Quetzacoatl, I'm not denying that sexual motivation is involved in the buying and selling of sex. That would be very strange indeed! If I implied that then I was very careless in my wording.
I would still maintain, however, that a rational person buying sex from someone else, would need to be deluding themselves if they really believed there were no other factors involved in the transaction, such as abuse of power, or the imposition of a superior set of choices and power-options over an inferior set. (I appreciate it could be argued that in particular circumstances this might not be the case.)
Of course, the person looking for sex isn't thinking that way! But that is what's happening, nevertheless. My motivation to get transport may lead me to steal a car. Just because I don't give a shit about the people who are harmed by my theft, or the laws that are broken, however, doesn't mean my motivation should outweigh the context, or wider implication of the crime.
I was just trying to contextualize prostitution as being symptomatic of an environment where the powerful - those who have choices, get to fuck who they want - and the powerless - those who have little choice - are the ones who get fucked, whether it's their desired way of earning a living or not.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Fair enough, Anselmina. I think it's pretty complicated. For example, I worked with a number of men (in therapy), who visited prostitutes, and who struck me as lonely and inadequate people. You could say that they felt powerless in relation to intimacy.
However, it still could be true that vis a vis a prostitute, whom they paid, they are in a superordinate position.
I suppose I grew distrustful of generalizations, since individuals are vastly complex. At the same time, we have to generalize at times.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I would still maintain, however, that a rational person buying sex from someone else, would need to be deluding themselves if they really believed there were no other factors involved in the transaction, such as abuse of power, or the imposition of a superior set of choices and power-options over an inferior set. (I appreciate it could be argued that in particular circumstances this might not be the case.)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Fair enough, Anselmina. I think it's pretty complicated. For example, I worked with a number of men (in therapy), who visited prostitutes, and who struck me as lonely and inadequate people. You could say that they felt powerless in relation to intimacy.
Prostitution = exploitation. Bare bones, there is no other position in our current world. I would go as far as to say it is not possible in any practical sense for it to ever be otherwise.
Side-stepping to #metoo, and looking at Louis CK and Aziz Ansari. Both of them were minor feminist icons until their behaviour was brought to light.
I think they both thought of themselves as feminist and would venture to say that they might actually be feminist. ish. Humans have the capacity to believe/do conflicting things. We have the capacity to be conflicting things.
This is no apologist statement. I do not think there is an acceptable excuse for using prostitutes.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
lilBuddha - well, thanks a lot for quote mining me, by deleting the para where I said that the men are in a superordinate position. What is the point of discussing stuff if people are going to delete chunks of what one says, and which are directly applicable, FFS.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
lilbuddha wrote:
quote:
This is no apologist statement. I do not think there is an acceptable excuse for using prostitutes.
The common counter-argument to that is the use by disabled people. There seem to be strong views for and against this, and I know hardly anything about it. I suppose you could extend it to psychologically damaged people.
This is a pretty pro article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/10/sex-workers-disabled-people
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The common counter-argument to that is the use by disabled people.
Is that really a counter-argument? Most of the women referred to in that article will have plenty of able-bodied clients as well - they are not just selling their services to the disabled.
I don't think you can coherently argue that it is a fine thing for someone's sexual services to be purchased by a disabled person, but unacceptable for someone who is not disabled to do the same thing.
Sure, there's a common opinion that able-bodied men (the discussion usually centers on men using female prostitutes) should be able to "get a woman", and considers it acceptable that only disabled men who are unable to "get a woman" through other means should be able to purchase one.
This whole thought process is treating the woman's body as a commodity, and I just don't see how the identity of the purchaser can make a difference to that. I don't see how you can build a rational argument that it's good for a disabled middle-aged man to be able to experience sex by purchasing it, but bad for an able-bodied middle-aged man with a wife who has lost interest in sex to be able to experience sex by purchasing it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
lilBuddha - well, thanks a lot for quote mining me, by deleting the para where I said that the men are in a superordinate position. What is the point of discussing stuff if people are going to delete chunks of what one says, and which are directly applicable, FFS.
I was not quote mining you.
My initial post was much longer and spoke in more detail about the varied dynamics, and made direct use of yours and Anselmina's quotes. When I stripped it back, I probably should have taken more care with the quotes.
However, your post is Right. Above. Mine. The vast majority of people reading this thread will have read yours before mine so I do not see this as a misrepresentation in the way you appear to be implying.
My post was less clearly written than it could be, but it was not an attack.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
lilbuddha wrote:
quote:
This is no apologist statement. I do not think there is an acceptable excuse for using prostitutes.
The common counter-argument to that is the use by disabled people. There seem to be strong views for and against this, and I know hardly anything about it. I suppose you could extend it to psychologically damaged people.
This is a pretty pro article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/10/sex-workers-disabled-people
I don't think this challenges my statement. Therapeutic prostitution does not exist in a vacuum. The escort, willing or otherwise, is still part of the whole of the problem.
The customer, in this situation, is addressing an issue in what is felt to be a practical way, but still relies on the realities of prostitution to be able to do so.
This is an example of how life is a complicated mix and not everything is solvable in a completely fair way.
A sex therapist would be a better solution, IMO.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I thought that there were sex therapists, who had some kind of sexual contact with disabled people, and presumably, others. And also subsidized sex for disabled people.
It used to be known as sex surrogacy and sexual assistance, but I have lost touch with all this.
I also had married male clients who saw male prostitutes, and often fell in love with them. Humans are complicated.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Leorning Cniht wrote:
quote:
This whole thought process is treating the woman's body as a commodity, and I just don't see how the identity of the purchaser can make a difference to that. I don't see how you can build a rational argument that it's good for a disabled middle-aged man to be able to experience sex by purchasing it, but bad for an able-bodied middle-aged man with a wife who has lost interest in sex to be able to experience sex by purchasing it.
I wasn't saying that it was good or bad. It seems to be a utilitarian solution, what else can they do? I suppose you could argue that they should do without sex, as that is 'better' morally. Dunno.
[ 19. February 2018, 16:55: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that there were sex therapists, who had some kind of sexual contact with disabled people, and presumably, others.
That isn't exactly prostitution. Though I am not completely comfortable with the practice, it is a different thing.
quote:
And also subsidized sex for disabled people.
And this would be prostitution and have all the inherent baggage
quote:
I also had married male clients who saw male prostitutes, and often fell in love with them.
I'd question the particular definition of love and just how it would survive outside of its original parameters.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose you could argue that they should do without sex, as that is 'better' morally. Dunno.
Sex is not a right. It is a powerful drive, but no individual has a right to have sex. Morally, it is better to not exploit people. If the choice is that a group of people don't get to have sex so that another group is not exploited, then yes, it is morally better.
Life is not fair. The best we can do is to make it suck the least we can for the largest number of people we can.
[ 19. February 2018, 17:34: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wasn't saying that it was good or bad. It seems to be a utilitarian solution, what else can they do? I suppose you could argue that they should do without sex, as that is 'better' morally. Dunno.
It's a utilitarian solution that doesn't address the needs of the prostitutes, though. It goes some way to address the question of whether it is moral for a disabled person in that kind of situation to have sex outside the bonds of marriage or a loving relationship, but it doesn't consider the status of the sex worker at all.
If a person is being exploited as a sex worker - constrained by economic pressures, by a pimp, or whatever else to provide sexual services, then their degree of exploitation does not change with the status of their customers (assuming the same acts, treatment etc.)
So I don't think you can take the line that hiring prostitutes for disabled people is morally OK unless you also take the line that sex work is not inherently exploitative.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Prostitution = exploitation H,mmm
Person A (male or female) advertises that they are willing to engage in sexual activity of one form or another for payment.
Person B (male or female) agrees the deal, the exchange is made.
No exploitation there. Exploitation only occurs by means of all the other factors revolving around the selling of sex.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Prostitution = exploitation H,mmm
Person A (male or female) advertises that they are willing to engage in sexual activity of one form or another for payment.
Person B (male or female) agrees the deal, the exchange is made.
No exploitation there. Exploitation only occurs by means of all the other factors revolving around the selling of sex.
No single act is separate from the process as a whole. So even if one accepted single examples as being non-expoitive in themselves, they still are contained within the whole.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Leorning Cniht wrote:
quote:
If a person is being exploited as a sex worker - constrained by economic pressures, by a pimp, or whatever else to provide sexual services, then their degree of exploitation does not change with the status of their customers (assuming the same acts, treatment etc.)
Well, I agree about pimps, since that involves coercion, but are you saying that economic pressures on prostitutes are different from those on other people?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I also had married male clients who saw male prostitutes, and often fell in love with them. Humans are complicated.
The context makes you sound like a pimp... but I don't think you are...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I agree about pimps, since that involves coercion, but are you saying that economic pressures on prostitutes are different from those on other people?
No, I'm saying that sex has a special status, and so being coerced by financial pressures into having sex with strangers is different from being coerced by financial pressures into cleaning their toilets (for example).
I don't think the special status of sex rests on religious considerations either - it is a uniquely personal and intimate act.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I also had married male clients who saw male prostitutes, and often fell in love with them. Humans are complicated.
The context makes you sound like a pimp... but I don't think you are...
I've been compared to a prostitute quite a lot; but with other therapists, we used to talk about being human toilets, accepting all the shit. Somebody has to do it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I agree about pimps, since that involves coercion, but are you saying that economic pressures on prostitutes are different from those on other people?
No, I'm saying that sex has a special status, and so being coerced by financial pressures into having sex with strangers is different from being coerced by financial pressures into cleaning their toilets (for example).
I don't think the special status of sex rests on religious considerations either - it is a uniquely personal and intimate act.
If you say so.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I agree about pimps, since that involves coercion, but are you saying that economic pressures on prostitutes are different from those on other people?
No, I'm saying that sex has a special status, and so being coerced by financial pressures into having sex with strangers is different from being coerced by financial pressures into cleaning their toilets (for example).
I don't think the special status of sex rests on religious considerations either - it is a uniquely personal and intimate act.
If you say so.
Look, my POV is that sex doesn’t have to have the exalted position that many people imbue it with.
But that doesn’t mean it isn’t personal or intimate. We are not separate, mind from body.
Your argument for the shy and disabled goes away if sex isn’t intimacy. Otherwise, buy them a sex toy and you are done.
You appear to want it both ways.
[ 19. February 2018, 19:20: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
lilBuddha wrote:
quote:
Look, my POV is that sex doesn’t have to have the exalted position that many people imbue it with.
But that doesn’t mean it isn’t personal or intimate. We are not separate, mind from body.
Your argument for the shy and disabled goes away if sex isn’t intimacy. Otherwise, buy them a sex toy and you are done.
You appear to want it both ways.
Well, I'm not stipulating what sex means for the disabled or the shy, as you put it. It might offer something 'uniquely personal and intimate', or it might offer something else. How the hell would I know? I don't think sex surrogacy requires terms and conditions, does it?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
lilBuddha wrote:
quote:
Look, my POV is that sex doesn’t have to have the exalted position that many people imbue it with.
But that doesn’t mean it isn’t personal or intimate. We are not separate, mind from body.
Your argument for the shy and disabled goes away if sex isn’t intimacy. Otherwise, buy them a sex toy and you are done.
You appear to want it both ways.
Well, I'm not stipulating what sex means for the disabled or the shy, as you put it. It might offer something 'uniquely personal and intimate', or it might offer something else. How the hell would I know? I don't think sex surrogacy requires terms and conditions, does it?
If surrogacy uses people, then something about being a person matters. Therefore personal.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Fair enough, Anselmina. I think it's pretty complicated. For example, I worked with a number of men (in therapy), who visited prostitutes, and who struck me as lonely and inadequate people. You could say that they felt powerless in relation to intimacy.
However, it still could be true that vis a vis a prostitute, whom they paid, they are in a superordinate position.
I suppose I grew distrustful of generalizations, since individuals are vastly complex. At the same time, we have to generalize at times.
I take your point, really. And that's why it's more the 'environment' of a culture of power, depriving certain people of choices - eg, through limited education/health choices, difficult access to welfare benefits etc, than the individual power of the person paying for sex, that I was thinking of, though I have made passing reference to that, as well.
You're quite right that many people who buy sex do not feel powerful, or in a position of subordinating another, when they do so; that it's often a symptom of personal inadequacy, or loneliness; or at best a compromised solution to a non-ideal situation.
I, too, would be distrustful of generalisms.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
For example, I worked with a number of men (in therapy), who visited prostitutes, and who struck me as lonely and inadequate people. You could say that they felt powerless in relation to intimacy.
However, it still could be true that vis a vis a prostitute, whom they paid, they are in a superordinate position.
I'm not sure that actually matters. I don't think that in general the degree of exploitation involved in an act of prostitution depends on the status of the client.
Consider a woman who is working as a prostitute in order to pay her mortgage. Consider two clients - one a businessman who squeezes in an hour of her time between meetings; another a lonely old man from a council estate who has been saving five quid a week from his state pension in order to be able to treat himself on his birthday.
Is the poor man buying the same sex somehow less exploitative? It can't possibly be.
The degree of exploitation in general has to do with the position of the prostitute in the general economy / society, rather than the client in specific.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
The problem here is that it is hard to tell whether a particular person is being empowered or exploited by prostitution.
In a war-zone it isn't so difficult and hard to see how anyone is empowered. But in a Western country, I'm at least willing to be open to the possibility that some people are making a free choice into sex work.
The problem is that this seems to be a tiny percentage of all sex workers, and it is extremely hard to tell whether any given person is being exploited or not.
I don't know about this sex-with-disabled thing, but I'd be surprised if many (or any) get involved in that because they believe in the therapeutic value of it. But perhaps that's just showing my prejudice - I have no idea.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The problem here is that it is hard to tell whether a particular person is being empowered or exploited by prostitution.
I disagree. Do you want your daughter or son to be a prostitute?
Until society as a whole views prostitution in exactly the same way they view other jobs like engineering and coffee service, it cannot be empowered.
And that is without addressing the human trafficking problems.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I disagree. Do you want your daughter or son to be a prostitute?
No. There is quite a long list of things I don't want my child to be.
But I'm not sure that this really is a measure of whether anyone else can or should do something.
quote:
Until society as a whole views prostitution in exactly the same way they view other jobs like engineering and coffee service, it cannot be empowered.
And that is without addressing the human trafficking problems.
I don't know if this is true.
I think one has to take seriously those who say that they're not being abused - even if they're a tiny percentage of the total.
Otherwise the only alternative is saying that sex workers are always, without exception, victims.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The problem here is that it is hard to tell whether a particular person is being empowered or exploited by prostitution.
I disagree. Do you want your daughter or son to be a prostitute?
Until society as a whole views prostitution in exactly the same way they view other jobs like engineering and coffee service, it cannot be empowered.
And that is without addressing the human trafficking problems.
I think that point about society is interesting. I can never sort out whether prostitution is considered bad because money for sex is bad, or because we feel bad about sex, or because sex is meant to be private and special. Of course, prostitution is surrounded by bad things, such as pimps and sleazy environments.
I was also thinking of the old saying that you don't pay a prostitute just for sex, but for being able to walk away, unlike marriage.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think one has to take seriously those who say that they're not being abused - even if they're a tiny percentage of the total.
Otherwise the only alternative is saying that sex workers are always, without exception, victims.
Only if you view life as zero-sum. It isn’t.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was also thinking of the old saying that you don't pay a prostitute just for sex, but for being able to walk away, unlike marriage.
What were you thinking about it?
I think it’s wrong. Casual sex vs marriage = being able to walk away vs not. Prostitution is a whole different thing.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Only if you view life as zero-sum. It isn’t.
Eh?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was also thinking of the old saying that you don't pay a prostitute just for sex, but for being able to walk away, unlike marriage.
What were you thinking about it?
I think it’s wrong. Casual sex vs marriage = being able to walk away vs not. Prostitution is a whole different thing.
When you say wrong, do you mean morally, or factually? Well, I've heard people say it, so it seems odd to say that they're inaccurate, if that's what they feel.
I agree there is a difference between casual sex and prostitution, but don't you think the difference can become very narrow? If I date a woman on the internet, buy her dinner, and then we have horizontal luurve, it's getting close to prostitution.
My mum used to say that marriage was a form of prostitution, but she was a cynical old git.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Only if you view life as zero-sum. It isn’t.
Eh?
There could exist a person from a nurturing background who voluntary chooses to be a prostitute.
This doesn't change that prostitution is exploitive by nature.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that point about society is interesting. I can never sort out whether prostitution is considered bad because money for sex is bad, or because we feel bad about sex, or because sex is meant to be private and special. Of course, prostitution is surrounded by bad things, such as pimps and sleazy environments.
Because it reduces the provider to an object. It isn't, and never has been, about choice and ability. It is about having a hole that can be filled and typically being identified by that function.
Sure, it is occasionally dressed up as something more, but that has been its essence.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Despite everything that's been said on this thread and in the media since, I still think what I said over a week ago. quote:
Originally posted by me:
I'm very, very suspicious of the furore. I'm sure it's driven by people who want an excuse to cut aid, and is timed to try to distract everyone's attention to the complete pigs ear the government is making at the moment of its brexit programme - or, rather, lack of it. ....
... At the moment, I'm inclined to think this is yet another hate-fest being orchestrated by a government I no longer trust that wants to use sanctimony for nefarious purposes of its own.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
It sure feels that way to me. Just as we're beginning to make some progress in defeating global poverty, we're getting this push back and narrative that all aid is a waste of money. I'm not suggesting they invented the prostitution story, but would expect them to drive it as an excuse for cutting aid/ undermining oxfam
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0