This is Finn Mackay's speech on prostitution that she gave at the Andrea Dworkin Commemorative Conference. I have transcribed her speech from the conference audio files, as part of Aradfem's project to make a written record of the conference.
Finn Mackay, Chair of the London Feminist Network: “Prostitution and Andrea Dworkin’s relevance to young feminists”
I’m going to stand up here, because God knows I’m short enough without sitting down as well [laughter].
Well okay, firstly, thank you very much for inviting me to speak at this important conference, and I really am very honoured to be here, and especially alongside such distinguished company. I’m going to start with a quote from Andrea Dworkin on prostitution. She says
I am talking about prostitution per se, without more violence, without extra violence, without a woman being hit, without a woman being pushed. Prostitution in and of itself is an abuse of a woman’s body. Those of us who say this are accused of being simple minded, but prostitution is very simple[,]
and it is on this issue that I should like to speak about today, for two main reasons.
Firstly, because we have, for the first time in this country, a national debate on this issue through the Government consultation process titled Paying the Price. And secondly, because I believe that this process presents us with a window of opportunity in which to drive forward change in public opinion on this issue, and this is important because we need change both from above, and below. At the moment things are moving forward at a governmental level, and yet on the ground many women, and especially younger women, often have no opportunity to hear feminist views on prostitution. Into this gap on the ground has come the voices of the pro-prostitution lobby, who, while they are not new, have certainly been stepping up their campaign, motivated against the proposals from Government. Now, of course, prostitution is not the only issue on which feminist voices have been silenced. And indeed, since the backlash against the Second Wave began in force, we have seen our movement fragmented and misrepresented on probably most issues. But with the public interest generated around Paying the Price, now is the ideal time to try and correct some of those misrepresentations, and to ensure that the truths we know about prostitution are told.
So what are the key proposals from Paying the Price? Firstly it is important to note, that despite confusion in the press, prostitution is not being legalised, primarily because it isn’t illegal in the country currently. The main crimes associated with it are loitering, soliciting and kerb crawling, and unfortunately, there is no suggestion to remove the crimes of loitering and soliciting. The key areas identified are prevention, tackling demand, developing routes out, ensuring justice, such as enforcing penalties for kerb crawlers, and tackling off-street prostitution, mainly with a concern for trafficking. And although we are not looking at a Swedish style law coming into effect here any time soon, and although these proposals are by no means perfect, this strategy should be welcomed, because it is a huge step in the right direction. We have heard the minister responsible for this strategy, Fiona Mactaggart, asserting that society would be likely to view prostitution very differently if we saw men who pay for sex as child abusers and rapists, and this is an indication of how far the Government has come on this issue. And indeed the document is a sea change from what was originally mooted for a strategy by David Blunkett when the consultation process began in 2004, with talk of tolerance zones.
So what we have to do now is make sure the Government delivers on the promises that it has set out and dedicates the funds for support, such as safe housing, drug treatment, exit programmes and campaigns against demand. And this is no more than what the vulnerable women in prostitution deserve as a matter of urgency, if we are to stem this pervasive and growing institution, which, along with the pornography industry, has become one of the last publicly defended and accepted forms of violence against women. Because although we may have won significant battles in the channels of parliament, we cannot leave it at that. Our Government has set out a clear position on prostitution as preventable, and not inevitable, but that doesn’t mean this view is shared by the wider public.
All too often, public opinion seems to believe that the way to make women safer in prostitution is to legalise the whole of the so-called ‘sex industry’. Now where is this propaganda coming from? Given the tone of Paying the Price, it is not surprising that the pro-prostitution lobby have been rallying against it. The defence of prostitution has also come from unlikelier quarters. For example, we have seen the trade union GMB recognise the International Union of Sex Workers, and the Green Party proposes legalisation on the grounds that the state should not interfere with the sexuality of consenting adults. But I believe that we do have allies in the trade union movement, and in the left as a whole, as Janice Raymond pointed out in her comprehensive article on the ILO, we have an excellent example from Venezuela, where the Government has consistently refused to recognise so-called sex worker unions on the grounds that this is simply promotion of prostitution. So these movements are not our enemies. It is ignorance of the simple facts of prostitution that enables the pro-prostitution lobby to manipulate the debate on this issue into one of workers’ rights, and away from women’s rights, and more importantly, away from women’s human rights.
But all too often for many women, and young women, those are the only arguments they hear on prostitution. Only recently for example, I attended a fringe meeting at the NUS Women’s Conference, where a group called Education Not For Sale hosted a speaker from the International Union of Sex Workers to talk about ‘Workers, not victims: the struggle for sexual freedom’. And there a group of student women were informed that prostitution is an area where women can feel good about themselves and about their own bodies, where they can explore their sexuality. We were told that trafficking is mainly a myth, and that we should speak instead of ‘migration for sex work’, and besides (and I quote), the amount it costs to be brought over from Thailand you can pay back in less than six months, if you work hard [audience reacts]. Honestly. There was much talk of women’s agency and workers’ rights, and most women at this meeting were silenced by what they had heard, but they did not raise their voices in disagreement, disbelief or disgust. They did not question the position from which this woman spoke, but I don’t think this is because there weren’t women in the room who were questioning and disbelieving, I think it was because the debate had been framed in the guise of liberalism and women’s rights and what we have to do, is remove the lies that cloak this issue, and take back this debate to the real facts of prostitution, in order that we can create a space in which women are allowed, and validated, to disagree with and question the dominant discourse on this issue.
And we don’t need to look hard for the facts on prostitution; even our own Government’s document Paying the Price, paints a grim but accurate picture of the levels of prostitution in our country today. Facts such as that 80,000 women work in on-street prostitution alone. Most enter this institution under eighteen years old, likely much younger, as we know the global average age is just fourteen. The majority have spent time in local authority care, and many report being subject to violence and abuse as children. And Andrea Dworkin always said that incest was a boot camp for prostitution, and the figures here bear this out, as at least 45% of the women in prostitution report childhood sexual abuse. Not only are prostituted women affected by violence and abuse before they enter this institution, but once in it they face disproportionate levels of rape and male violence. Canadian studies report a 40% higher risk of homicide, and in this country it is estimated at 12%. But let us just think for a minute about what exactly it means to be disproportionately affected by male violence in a country where the reality of this is already unacceptably high for all women. Where one in four women are suffering domestic violence, where at least 50,000 women are raped every year, where two women a week are killed by a male partner, in a world where male violence is actually the leading cause of death for women worldwide. Now, these figures give us only an idea, a glimmer, of the routine levels of violence and abuse that women in prostitution face, and it is no wonder that the majority of women want out, with one Canadian study reporting that 95% of their respondents working in prostitution wished they could leave.
But as well as the billions of incidents of rape, battery and homicide that are committed against women in prostitution, there is the matter of the very institution itself. The very business of prostitution as a whole is a violation and violence against all women, against all of us. The fact of prostitution is that its very existence depends on a class of people (and yes, I do think women are a class), that is women, who are for sale and a social assumption that those people born into the male sex enjoy a natural right to buy and sell those Othered people. Every hierarchy we know in patriarchal society plays out in prostitution, not just along the lines of sex, but race and class, for example. It is no surprise that in every country where research has been done that it has been found that the majority in prostitution are poor women, are black women, are immigrant women. Real equality and freedom cannot exist as long as prostitution does. The suggestion of women’s equality, in a world where the value we all share as women is that our bodies all have a price, will never be anything more than just that, a suggestion. As Andrea Dworkin said, while any one of us is being bought or sold, none of us are free. And this is why legalising the so-called ‘sex industry’ can never make women safer; the fact is it will make all women less safe, including the women within it.
Legalisation has not made women safer in Amsterdam, where following legalisation, child prostitution increased by over 300%. It hasn’t made women safer in Australia, where trafficking and the illegal prostitution sector rose by a third in just one year after legalisation. And unionisation will also not make women safer, not least because, as we know, unionisation is simply legalisation by the back door. Now off-record, most trade unionists agree that prostitution unionisation is unworkable, but they argue that for the wider industry it may be viable, such as in chatlines and strip clubs, et cetera.
They demand rights for these women, and yet the means they offer to grant them involves undermining every human right we know, while legitimising and promoting a multi-billion dollar business built on the oppression of women. When the offer of workers’ rights comes at such a high price, we can deduce that concern for our safety and equality is not what’s on the table. We have to demand our rights as human beings first, and that means committing to closing down the so-called ‘sex industry’, not expanding it! And if we are to do this we need to make the real facts of prostitution heard for all women, including young women. Because I believe that we do have many allies out there, who as yet have simply not heard our arguments. We need to tap into the rising tide of anger and dissatisfaction that I see growing amongst young women who are sick of the constant, pervasive objectification of women’s bodies in our society; young women who are alarmed and angered by uncommented instances of sexual harassment and rape in their lives, in their universities and colleges, on their campuses and in their halls. And I do think that a tide is turning.
Last year in November the London Feminist Network organised a Reclaim the Night march in honour of Andrea Dworkin, and nearly 700 women, mainly young women, from all over the country, from student unions and university women’s groups marched through the streets of London against rape and male violence. And already women’s groups and students’ groups are organising events to bill for this year’s march, in order that it be even bigger than the last. We always follow the march with a rally, and last year we had a reading of a Take Back the Night speech by Andrea Dworkin. And afterwards, one young woman remarked to me that she couldn’t believe it was the words of Andrea Dworkin because she quite agreed with it! [laughter]. And up until then, of course, all she had heard were the myths and the lies about Andrea’s work. For me this sums up the potential of feminism today, and it is no wonder that our enemies are trying so hard to silence us, misrepresent our arguments and alienate us from public debate, because in reality the debate is very simple, and it is not one about workers’ rights. It is one about men’s rights.
Do we, as a society accept that men have a right to buy and sell women’s bodies whenever they choose, or do we not? The existence, pervasiveness, growth and sheer long history of prostitution is not an example of its normality, for there are many other shameful blots on our humanity and dignity that have lasted just as long. Next month marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade, a long battle that in many ways is still not won. But we took a step 200 years ago that we wouldn’t have done with excuses and acceptance, and in so doing, we committed to an idea of an equal world, and we became closer to it, for the benefit of us all- and we must do the same with prostitution. Just like them, nobody has the right to expect us to excuse or accept any form of oppression, based simply because of how long it has been in existence. No, we will not defend the indefensible or excuse the inexcusable, and we will win. And maybe 200 years from now we will all be free. Thank you.
thank you x
Comment by v — May 11, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
bonjour,
i hear you’re a bit famous. makes me famous by association. Nice.
So does this make me Linden in the rain?
read your emails! and keep up the good work- sister! (in more ways than one!)
and i promise to stop the french
au revoir x x
Comment by thefairy — May 12, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
Hehehehe, you can be Linden in the Rain if you like!
Thanks, sis!
seeyou on Sunday!
Comment by laurelin — May 12, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
What does she mean by the assumption that men have a right to buy and sell women?
The reason I ask is because as far as I can see men don’t have that right in the UK. Selling a woman (pimping) is illegal. I’m not really sure what a “right to buy” something is. I figure it means that an offer to purchase something can’t be refused; so if want to buy a road tax disc, they can’t refuse to sell it you. But that’s not the case with prostitution, unless coercion is used (which is also illegal).
I get that prostitution is nasty and should be done away with. But sometimes I get confused by a lot of the rhetoric thrown around in pieces like the about and can’t follow exactly what they’re saying.
Comment by james — May 12, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
James -
“The reason I ask is because as far as I can see men don’t have that right in the UK. Selling a woman (pimping) is illegal.”
Many men assume they have the right to buy women’s bodies. The legality/illegality of the transaction is irrelevant to the perceived/assumed right.
Nice work Laurelin
Comment by witchy-woo — May 12, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
As Witchy said, Finn was refering to the perceived right of men to buy and sell women’s bodies. She argues that we have to oppose the sale of women, because any woman’s body being sold means that a price is put on female flesh. Some selling of women’s bodies is legally protected, such as in pornography.
Our main aim is to get away from tolerating women being objects for purchase, so that women are able to be the full human beings they can be, instead of being reduced to a body that can be bought.
I hope that’s made things clearer.
Comment by laurelin — May 12, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
[...] Finn Mackay’s speech on prostitution at Laurelin in the Rain. [...]
Pingback by Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » The Andrea Dworkin Commemorative Conference — May 13, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
i’ve just seen you. ha.
Comment by thefairy — May 14, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
Great post. Just as a general question, what would you propose as a sort of public education on this subject? It’s a great idea definitely. I was horrified by the recent ads about sexual consent in the UK, y’know those ones they put up in men’s bathrooms and such. I mean, way to objectify whilst at the same time doing a halfhearted attempt at education. I think media can be a very powerful tool for social change, in all its forms *if* it is used correctly. We just need loads of feminists working on television, writing beind the scenes, doing the marketing for products, adverts etc Its all about exposure and publicity of new attitudes.
Comment by piecesofeight — May 15, 2006 @ 7:09 pm
I think Finn’s misrepresented the ENS fringe meeting on sex workers at NUS Women’s Conference – the only people silenced in the room were those who were shouted down and interrupted by both Finn and the Chair of Steering who were both presenting views against the unionisation of sex workers.
I also find it hard to believe that anyone can claim to be “left” politically and laud the Venezuelan government’s refusal to recognise sex workers’ unions. Regardless of your position on prostitution, whether you think it’s always violence against women or not, surely the best way for women to improve their situation is by organising together for their rights.
Comment by sofie — May 18, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
[...] Yesterday I was searching Technorati for reports of NUS Women’s Conference 2006 and came across this post, a transcript by Laurelin of a speech given by Finn Mackay at the Andrea Dworkin Commemorative Conference. It came up because Finn refers to the Education Not for Sale fringe meeting at NUS Women’s Conference, where a representative from the International Union of Sex Workers spoke about her experience of the sex industry. Here’s what Finn had to say about us; But all too often for many women, and young women, those are the only arguments they hear on prostitution. Only recently for example, I attended a fringe meeting at the NUS Women’s Conference, where a group called Education Not For Sale hosted a speaker from the International Union of Sex Workers to talk about ‘Workers, not victims: the struggle for sexual freedom’. And there a group of student women were informed that prostitution is an area where women can feel good about themselves and about their own bodies, where they can explore their sexuality. We were told that trafficking is mainly a myth, and that we should speak instead of ‘migration for sex work’, and besides (and I quote), the amount it costs to be brought over from Thailand you can pay back in less than six months, if you work hard [audience reacts]. Honestly. There was much talk of women’s agency and workers’ rights, and most women at this meeting were silenced by what they had heard, but they did not raise their voices in disagreement, disbelief or disgust. They did not question the position from which this woman spoke, but I don’t think this is because there weren’t women in the room who were questioning and disbelieving, I think it was because the debate had been framed in the guise of liberalism and women’s rights and what we have to do, is remove the lies that cloak this issue, and take back this debate to the real facts of prostitution, in order that we can create a space in which women are allowed, and validated, to disagree with and question the dominant discourse on this issue. [...]
Pingback by volsunga » Blog Archive » A response to Finn Mackay — May 19, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
I was at the Education Not for Sale event that you mentioned. It is misleading to say that the debate was one sided. The speaker stated several times that she could only speak from her own expereince, she acknoleged the dreadful suffereing that some prostitues but her own experience of it was positive. I think if you do not accept this as a valuble part of the wider debate you risk any claim you make for womyn’s autonomy. Also, you made your voice heard very strongly at the event, as did serveral other anti-prostitution voices who dominated the question and answer session afterwards – the principle of what you say is lost because your evidence if factually inacurate.
In relation of the reclaim the night march that you organised I was part of a group that did not go because we did not know what your stance on sex workers was (not for lack of effort trying to find out). You are to be congratulated on staging such a successful event, however, I wonder how many of those who marched knew your stance on sex workers until the rally afterward. I therefore feel that your claim that 700 womyn all agreed with your anti-prositution stance is also inaccurate.
Prostitution is not something that should be taken lightly and therefore something that should not be simplified. I have difficulty beliving that any prostitute finds her/his profession liberating because I belive tht capitolism is inherintally oppressive. I therefore believe that it is paramout that prostitutes unionise so that they have their will heard and are not dictated to (and surely as feminists this is what we are fighting for for all womyn). Also, if I do not listen to my sisters who tell me otherwise with an open mind I am doing myself, them and feminism a great disservice.
Comment by joanna — May 29, 2006 @ 10:50 am
As a feminist activist here in France,I didn’t know how to counter the “it’s my choice, I’ve never had any problems, it’s a job like any other” pro-legalisation arguments. Last year at a fringe meeting of the UN Comission on the Status of Women, a woman now exited from prostitution explained it very clearly. She explained that while she was working as a prostitute, sorry “sex worker”, she too would have defended her “choice”, because to do otherwise was to admit to a reality that, for her, would have been insupportable. Some prostitutes use drugs, some tell themselves that it’s only until they earn enough for their ticket home, some tell themslves that they’ve made a positive carer choice, but as the same speaker said, if it’s such an honourable profession, try putting “prostitute” on your CV and see what happens. Where men argue for the legalisation of prostitution as a job like any other, challenge them directly and ask them if they’d agree to their partner/child doing it.The pro-legalisation lobby are pouring millions into their campaign, not to defend the human rights of prostitutes, but because they know there are many millions more to be made.We have to challenge them whenever and however we can.
Comment by brandane — July 28, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
AIDS and Poverty in Bangladesh
Mohammad Khairul Alam
Executive Director
Rainbow Nari O Shishu Kallyan Foundation
24/3 M. C. Roy Lane
Dhaka-1211, Bangladesh
Tel: 880-2-8628908
Mobile: 01711344997
Mail: rainbowngo@gmail.com
Web: http://www.plusbangla.com
AIDS pandemic is already having destroyed social and economical system in some regions of South African countries. It makes threat to move backward the progress that economies have made in many poor countries. HIV/AIDS affects everyone in both developed and poor countries. It is not a disease of poverty. It is not individual problem. However the pandemic does push people deeper into poverty, making it more difficult for them to sustain or recover their earlier livelihoods. That, in turn, can make people and their families more vulnerable to HIV/AIDS infection. Globally, every day 14,000 people getting infected HIV and among them 90% of less developed countries.
Poverty does not cause HIV/AIDS infection; it can facilitate transmission, Poverty makes people more vulnerable to HIV infection, due to lack of health care knowledge, lack of proper digest, and lack of sufficient nutrition, which can result in a weaker immune system. They also have less access to healthcare facilities and education on health issues such as HIV prevention. So it is fact, poverty & gender discrimination would be the main cause of the spread of AIDS in Bangladesh, The rate of vulnerability to HIV/AIDS is our country is higher then the many parts of the world. Unfortunately we are bound to say, HIV is only transmitted through man. We don’t get infect it by other living or death species. The overwhelming majority of people infected with HIV do not know they carry the virus. Many millions more know nothing or too little about HIV/AIDS to protect themselves against it. So it is true that men destroy themselves and others.
The most common reason of HIV/AIDS is considered to be the unsafe or unprotected sex. Sex without taking proper precaution like condom is very much responsible for HIV/AIDS. AIDS is usually transmitted from man to man through the semen or blood. Since 1981, more than 60 million people have been infected by HIV of which over 22 million people already died. Now, over 50 million people are living with HIV.
The health care system is low in Bangladesh. Thousands of people die in every year by several seasonal diseases. Particular health care or prevention knowledge would prevent this fatal mortality. Capital city’s health care system is upgraded in some extent but rural level health care system is nominal. Several NGO’s are working on HIV/AIDS prevention sector. But we found that there is a massive need of facilities and manpower to deliver comprehensive HIV care and laboratory facilities to support and monitor the therapy. There is a similar lack of medical personnel with enough knowledge of antiretroviral therapy. Possibilities for drug distribution to remote corners are limited and storage facilities are often insufficient.
Rainbow Nari O Shishu Kallyan Foundation found extremely high levels of infections among adolescent girls, which are higher than those for boys. This is mainly because of the fact that at young age, boys have sex with girls of similar age, while girls have relations with older men, who are more likely to be infected. Sexual harassment of schoolgirls by older men sometime may be the cause of HIV infection. Poverty also drives many adolescent girls to accept relationships with ’sugar daddies’ (older men who are prepared to give money, goods or favors in return for sex).
As mention AIDS Researcher Mr. Roger Tatoud, “To “think” about women and their role in society is already to empower them. It is the first step that leads to power-sharing between men and women, and as such should be at the heart of the responsible and hopefully successful strategies much needed in the fight against HIV and Aids. Undoubtedly gender mainstreaming requires political will and commitment, often in the hands of men.”
Since the join and traditional familitical system playing a vital role to prevent HIV/AIDS without our concern in Bangladesh, this disease is not turning into an epidemic in a poor and illiterate country like us. Our religious belief, respect to other people’s thought, politeness as a nation and restricted social system etc. and the education which we get from our families, are protecting us from many unsocial activities and bad jobs. But in these days, our social values and the social structure are facing a great threat following the western cultures. Familitical ties are breaking; pre-marital relation and unsocial activities are increasing day by day. That is why to protect the traditional social system and to make aware the people – we have to be alert.
Reference: World Bank, UNAIDS, Rainbow Nari O Shishu Kallyan Foundation
Comment by Mohammad Khairul Alam — November 21, 2006 @ 8:14 am
Consensual sex is increasing in Bangladesh; it would become vulnerable of HIV/AIDS.
Mohammad Khairul Alam
Executive Director
Rainbow Nari O Shishu Kallyan Foundation
24/3 M. C. Roy Lane
Dhaka-1211, Bangladesh
rainbowngo@email.com
Tel: 880-2-8628908
Mobile: 01711344997
HIV/AIDS constitute a significant public health threat around the world. By the end of 2006, about 39.5 million people worldwide were living with HIV/AIDS, unfortunately 90% of them in developing countries. During 2006 alone, a total of 4.3 million adults and children were found to be newly infected with HIV, and in the same year, 2.9 million people died from HIV/AIDS – 80% of them Africans. In two decades, AIDS has killed almost 30 million people and orphaned over 14 million children.
HIV/AIDS epidemic spreads out depend on several social custom or norm prejudicial practice, such as gender discrimination, sexual violence, early marriage, trafficking, unsafe sex or exploitation of sex workers, transmission of other STDs, intravenous/injection drug uses. Socio-economic position and illiteracy also can makes vulnerable for HIV/AIDS.
An increase in affluence also has resulted in a rise in the number of men who visit commercial sex workers. HIV/AIDS in Bangladesh, therefore depends on the conditions in the commercial sex industry, including the frequency of the incidents of men visiting commercial sex workers. While, everyone buying sex in Bangladesh is having unprotected sex some of the time, and a large majority don’t use condoms regularly. The fourth national surveillance also found a high prevalence of syphilis among female sex workers. The same floating sex workers in central Bangladesh who had a 0.5 percent prevalence of HIV, for example, had a 42.7 percent prevalence of syphilis.
Bangladesh is still considered as a low HIV/AIDS prevalent country; by the way Bangladesh is passing at a critical moment, the majority of AIDS cases in here are the result of needle sharing. Of 500 injection drug users questioned in central Bangladesh during the fourth national surveillance, 93.4 percent said they had shared needles in last week. Providing clean needles is also considered important because it decreases the spread of HIV from injection drug-users. It is also important to bring a behavioural change among commercial sex workers (CSWs) by promoting the use of condom.
After several investigate on sex industries have identified more then 1,00,000 various category commercial and non-commercial sex workers in Bangladesh who are most of them illiterate. Some female brothel sex workers have an average of 20-25 clients per week, Female hotel sex worker meet an average of 44 clients in a week, the highest number of clients in commercial sex than any other counties in South-East Asian region. Moreover the residence sex workers and floating sex workers are present in large number though the precise distribution and prevalence is still unknown. By a study ‘Rainbow Nari O Shishu Kallyan Foundation’ also found that a substantial proportion of some young and single textile, garment workers, tea garden female workers, house key-per supplement their low wages by occasional prostitution. Consensual sex or non-commercial sex exists in rural societies, particularly when husbands are absent for a long time.
Sex before marriage, or sex after marriage without spouse, is still taboo for most people in our society. Most would also prefer their partners to be virgins. Sex has become much more accepted in our society today. The fact that sex has become very common among adolescents today is irrefutable.
Sex is consent is more common in the upper classes and the poorer classes of society; it seems they have both social and religious approval to engage in consensual sex and can have it anywhere. Some private sector, high official persons are engaged consensual sex with their subordinate female colleagues. It happens to avoid official harassment or money or any other material compensation is involved. Lower female workers like as garment workers sometimes has a boyfriend for the sake of protection from harassment by other men. Some low wages female workers engage to consensual sex to fulfill their families’ burden.
Women in Bangladesh are largely getting sexual experience through marriage and for the most part, sex is consent is mostly confined to their future husband or lovers. “Rainbow Nari O Shishu Kallyan Foundation” found, sexual behaviour among Bangladeshi women is changing. Young girls may not remain in the traditional sexual confinement of the previous generations and consensual sex among them is on the rise. It may encourage AIDS to acquire alarming proportions in Bangladesh.
Media, jobs security and natural devastation always play a vital role to change human behaviour. This social change would happen gradually or rapidly. By the way, the cause of changing of human behaviour in our society is to the mixed effect of urbanization and modernization has brought frustration in the man. For these two things people are forgetting traditional social norms, family sexual behaviour is changing, attitude of peoples towards sex is changing very fast. Besides migration for jobs, an increasing number of women taking up jobs outside the home, a decline in the traditional joint family system, and conflict to global culture were considered to have contributed to this phenomenon.
References: Rainbow Nari O Shishu Kallyan Foundation, World Bank
Comment by Mohammad Khairul Alam — November 26, 2006 @ 5:11 am