Our thanks to Darren of Men4Decrim-Scotland for this:
“A Call to Action
The Justice Committee of the Scottish Assembly has called for input on a proposal to introduce the ‘Nordic’ system into Scotland. That system decriminalises sellers of sexual services (usually women) and criminalises purchasers (usually men).
You can disagree with this discriminatory proposal by entering ‘Strongly oppose’, or something similar, in response to Question 1 here : https://yourviews.parliament.scot/justice/prostitution-offences-support-bill/
Responses can be made anonymously, and this takes just a couple of minutes.
Please respond even if you are not in Scotland, because, if adopted in Scotland it will come to England and Wales too.
Please let anyone else know, whom you think might also oppose the proposals, and respond to the consultation.
(The four other questions can be left blank, if you do not have a view)
For those who want more detail, it was tried in Northern Ireland, and failed (although it is not being repealed): https://nationalsurvivornetwork.org/document/a-review-of-the-criminalisation-of-paying-for-sexual-services-in-northern-ireland/
It also increased violence and abuse, according to reports.
Human rights organisations, charities, experts and others, have been trying to oppose the system, but need your help. (A starter list of 150 is here: https://decrimnow.org.uk/open-letter-on-the-nordic-model/ )
The public are also against it, with only one in seven supporting it: https://nen.press/national-ugly-mugs-new-law-to-outlaw-purchase-of-sex-could-lead-to-just-45-recorded-crimes-a-year-ash-regan-admits/ (see final paragraph)
Most of the UK population believe both purchase and sale of sex should be legal: https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/48773-what-does-britain-think-of-sex-work-and-sex-workers
However Julie Bindel, and organisations like Feminista UK, have been pushing hard for the discriminatory Nordic system, and it will go through if it is not stopped.“
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Done. Now long lost in the mists of legend one of my favourite authors, Oscar Wilde, was on imprisoned for his love of “Bosie” but for the procuring of young men for sex in London. This procuring of “rent boys”, as they are known now, had been made illegal in the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 “An Act to make further provision for the Protection of Women and Girls, the suppression of brothels, and other purposes,”. This had a long route through Parliament and was seen as a a means to prevent male lust distracting them from their duty to their families. Heavily lobbied for by women’s groups. This was in fact only the second piece of legislation that was linked to homosexuality. The first being an HenryVIII Act prohibiting “sodomy” ( the sex act itself as it included prosecutions of men sodomising women). Hence the aristocratic elite may have often “outraged society” with homosexual or bisexual behaviours but were not prosecuted by any law, even if “exiled” by public disapproval such as the notoriously bi sexual Lord Rochester. Oscar Wilde’s mistake, as warned by his contemporaries, was to think this situation was still the case in the 1890s, where appeals to ancient Greece’s Art and Poetry cut no ice with authorities armed with legislation to curtail London’s brothels and prostitution as part of “protecting Women and Girls” from the lusts and irresponsibility of men, including the ones who liked men.
In order to defend himself from Wilde’s libel Lord Queensbury had to show Wilde was indeed a “sodomite”. In doing so his “team” found a number of the young men Wilde had procured, to testify. In doing so creating the case for the prosecution under the 1885 Act. Now practically airbrushed out of the story, at the time most of the public discourse was in fact about how Wilde had abused his wife and children by carrying on affairs and sybaritic lifestyle of “lust” at the expense of his obligations to Constance and his children. I mention this for two reasons. The first that the 1885 Act was mainly about prosecutions of the “procurers” ie the supposedly lustful males. And a reminder that the main legislation still used in the 20th Century to prosecute gay men was very much in the mould of VAWG;all men (even the gay ones) being morally dubious. Something maybe gay “allies” of feminists might ponder.
LikeLike
Women have always known that they can utilise their sexuality to extract goods and services from men. Although the polite society of the Victorian era was unwilling to discuss the transactional nature of their dealings, it was spotted by Arthur Schopenhauer in his 1851 essay ‘on Women’ – “Women have only one kind of business.” Arthur also observed many traits which would be familiar to the average feminist today…the female unhappiness with the monogamy of the marriage contract, leading to a propensity to cheat when the opportunity presented itself. This brought penalties if caught. But laws which have increasingly come to the fore in the present feminist era -1970 to date -are designed to facilitate female reproductive choice by destabilising monogamous marriage, and even the meaning of marriage, while ensuring wealth transfer M->F (no fault divorce, family courts, support of paternity fraud, welfare for mainly women, paid for by taxing mainly men).
So, men are opting out of marriage. Soon, they will be opting out of the wokeplace, where they are forced to ‘compete’ with females (an unnatural situation) in a rigged game. All to allow more female ‘choice’ of higher-value male partners, and render more and more men invisible…by law (‘sexual harassment’ legislation).
The possibility that men may refuse to be replaceable, interchangeable, disposable donkeys on some kind of carousel – this scares the beJesus out of women!!
So- they fall back on the tool which has served them so well over the eons… now threatening a 4B movement if men don’t vote in the ‘right’ way, for more feminism.
The problem with sticks and carrots is that they must be credible. A future of endless sticks, herding us into the sheep pen where the male sheep can be fleeced, after they have tupped the ewe..? It’s not a brilliant prospect. But, it’s the reality of the marriage market in 2025.
So, their big fear now revolves around future generations of men allowing the boss girls to boss, fiddling while Rome burns, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, while men do the bare minimum of work, opt out of the consumer society, cease to pay so much tax, and fulfil their base desires in other ways.
Obviously, it doesn’t suit feminists that prostitution should be criminalised. So, if the providers of the service are allowed to provide, while the clients are criminalised, this appeals to female logic of ‘all men bad’ while still allowing women to profit! And, in doing so, feminists hope to deny men any sexual outlet, in the vain hope that this will keep them on the treadmill for female benefit. It’s what lies behind the latest bleatings of Laura Bates also. She’s afraid of the world turning into one big cyberbrothel where men don’t even need women any longer.
https://www.simonandschuster.co.uk/books/The-New-Age-of-Sexism/Laura-Bates/9781471190483
As an aside to the Oscar Wilde situation, there’s a strong possibility that laws against sodomy were so strongly enforced during these times because they were an effective birth control policy…. and therefore denied women their main leverage in dipping male bank accounts for the rest of their lives. Certainly, the practice would be a major disruptor of the female business model.
LikeLike
Interestingly there was a sudden flurry of prosecutions in the early 19th Century resulting in a few executions, but this seemed to abate and for a quarter of a century there were no convictions. In the 1860s there began to be lobbying all around the laws about divorce and from then on it was firmly tied to public discourse about husbands being enticed away from their duty by following their “lusts”. In a sort of separate world it was court martialled in the Navy throughout this period but without the severe sentences including death that were in the Civilian statute. Interestingly the various statutes about sexual behaviour from the late 19th Century increasingly zeroed in on the disruption to women (wives) assumed to result from male same sex behaviour. So that surprisingly in the general relaxing of these laws in the era of “sexual liberation” male to female “buggery” remained a serious offense until 1997. One of the lies told by feminists is that it has been women who have been controlled. In terms of Legislation there are far more statutes concerned with male sexual behaviour (heterosexual and same sex) often with pretty serious consequences. Lesbians in particular have benefitted by being completely ignored. In a way the current feminist programme of reviving this tendency to regulate male behaviour through legislation and imprisonment is rolling back the “sexual liberation” to, as you say, men face severe punishment for not being focussed on their wives (or partners). In reality the sexual liberation for women was from social attitudes , whereas for men it actually liberated them from some pretty draconian laws.
As to your general point we are indeed seeing a sputtering debt ridden society unable to find the energy to develop. In a way for reasons those Victorians would quickly identify. “Progress” being achieved by harnessing their young men to all the many national and global projects through their desire to “succeed” in order to be eligible, marry and reproduce. It would be no surprise that our “feminised” society has such numbers of our young men “switched off” and on benefits. Their “medicine” would include “sticks” but also carrots, such as pay increases when a man got married and had “bought into” being a responsible and hard working staff member. Personally I don’t think many feminists are as strategic as you suggest, however the results are indeed a stagnant society with no direction. Maybe Camille Paglia’s observation about the past, that if left to women we would still live in grass huts, may be prophetic for the future if we can’t find incentives for our young men to strive and build.
LikeLiked by 1 person