Talk about missing the point of feminists getting upset about sex trafficking.
There’s a big difference between illegal immigrants choosing consensual prostitution and illegal immigrants being lured with false promises and then abducted into sex slavery, moron.
Thankfully the commentors at the Guardian’s Comment Is Free mostly don’t fall for his argument about open borders (really, to argue for open borders he had to defend sex trafficking), except for the inevitable few who don’t think Harkin blamed feminists sufficiently in the post.
The real question is what is more immoral-the creation of a neoliberal world order which impoverishes so many and gets them to work for a dollar a day or the fact that some women might want to use their phzsical attractiveness to lure a lonely Western man who can provide for her without having to deal with Western women who seem cold, egotistical and obsessed with their careers.
This is a point made strikingly in Michel Houellebecq’s novel Platforme ( 2001 ). When whole swathes of the old Soviet Union were reduced to destitution because of shock therapy or where South East Asia is forced to reform by the IMF and introduced competitive neoliberal capitalism there the inevitable result is sex tourism if not out-and-out prostitution.
Feminists might well react with ‘moral disgust’. After all, who wants a system of neoliberal perfect competition in sex with a new supply of attractive and unspoilt women from countries where they value the male contribution?
Robin Brown, posting from Hungary
Nice.